Is animal experimentation justified?

Question

I personally feel that no animals should ever be harmed in any way at all and value animal life as equal to human life. I do however understand that certain experiments where say only a small number of animals are harmed to create a cure that saves millions may have some justification. I feel however that on a general level this practice should be banned, why not use jailed murders etc

Answer 1

You're right. Murderers and child molesters would be much better for medical experiments. Leave the innocent animals out of it!

Answer 2

I do not think animal experimentation can be justified for cosmetics and other trivial uses.

Also, I am aware that there are metabolic and biochemical differences between the various species on this planet (humans included). This weakens the case for the use of animal testing.

However when it comes to medical research the question becomes murkier, animals should not have to suffer unnecessarily, but if the result is that a few lab animals die in order to provide a cure for crippling or fatal conditions I'm cautiously in favour.

The real issue for me is really about the alternatives to animal testing, if cultured tissues rather than a living animal will provide the same quality of data we should use that method. Until practical affordable methods have been funded many research projects have little choice in their methods, but humane treatment of animals should come first.

As for the use of "jailed murderers" etc, unless they volunteer it should not be allowed and only under strict supervision, with the company running the research legally responsible for the final condition of the prisoner.

Answer 3

Animal experimentation is not justified when alternatives exist. In some cases, animals and humans have been and will have to be sacraficed in the name of science. However, most of the animal experimentation going on today, especially in the cosmetic industry, is not justified since there are alternatives. A few of these alternatives include complex computer models and softwares, as well as human skin that is grown cruelty-free in labs. These results are more accurate than the animal testing ones, since animals' reactions to substances are not always the same as humans'. They are animals, after all. Many companies use animal testing to easily get an FDA-approval stamp, even if the results from their tests are skewed due to the putrid conditions in which the animals live as well as the fact that animals were used at all. In summation, if alternatives exist and there is no other way to reach an important scientific advancement (such as adcanced veterinary sciences) then it makes sense to use animals. I do not like the idea, but in the forementioned case I would also use a human life (and humans have been used to test products before.)

Answer 4

I like the murderers and child molesters idea (don't think it'll ever get past the ethics commitees though). Unfortunately drugs have to be tested out in some way and I think most people would put the life of their child over the life of an animal. I do feel that more money should be used to research viable alternatives to animal testing so that as few animals are harmed as possible without compromising patient care.

EDIT: It is my understanding that testing cosmetics on animals has been banned in the UK (about time too).

Answer 5

I dont feel its right for stupid stuff like cosmetics etc - i dont need foundation or mascara, so why should it be tried on rabbits etc? Plus, surely with technology today they should have developed alternative methods?

however, if its a drug for cancer or AIDS etc and its either try it on the rabbit and then modify it and then cure people, or not have the drug at all, then im sorry rabbit, but i think it should go ahead.

maybe we arent 'better' than the rabbit, but it is survival of the fittest.

the reality is we cant use murderers rapists etc because its a viooation of their human rights or something. they are people and regardless of their crime, they are still human.

people do get tested on - look at that case fairly recently where those blokes had a really bad reaction and a few died, so its not like it doesnt get tested on humans, but it has to be consensual

and no, the rabbit cant give consent, but again, im afraid that's the nature of evolution and survival.

i dont wantto watch the world die of aids or cancer because i play a rabbits life over that of my sister or yours

Answer 6

i am a devout animal lover and i have always felt deep remorse that we have to harm animals for experiments to make medicine for the human beings,(not cosmetics research) but if you were desperately ill and a drug would save your life what would your view be!!I know, a very selfish one, I've been there, so if only there were other ways for proving effectiveness , perhaps your last 5 words might be the answer!!!but you know Jamie you could debate this question as it has been for many years and still not arrive at a solution, perhaps an alternative will rear its head one day soon. its very sad!!hope your edit is correct Ellie

Answer 7

I totally agree with you. I think animals used in experimentation to see if my shampoo will upset my stomach if I eat a whole bottle is ridiculous! However, cures for deadly diseases which may save many lives, is a different story. Prison inmates is a great opportunity, damn those human rights! Ha! But I know what you mean. I wish there were more ways to experiment without causing harm. It is a tough issue.

Answer 8

My sentiments are the same as yours on the following question. People do donate their bodies to science and humans are used in experimentations as well. In the end of the day, life is about survival of the fittest...human race seems to be emphasizing that.

Answer 9

To true. And convicted paedophiles as well (where the evidents is 100% concrete without a shadow of a doubt)

Answer 10

Because the only way jailed murderers will be subjected to death is if they are sentenced to death row, and even then, the death is always quick and as painless as possible, never tortueos.