Do you think using animals for psychological and medical research is humane or should be stop or limited?

Perhaps you mean humane?

I think right now an animal model is necessary for certain types of research, but in my opinion there is not enough control.

People who rage against animal medical research but then eat factory beef, or anything from McDonalds are not thinking things through very carefully, but by the same token, Universities that give PhD candidates mice to use for “research” just so thay can present a paper and get a grade aren’t thinking things through either.

There needs to be a good ethics board to make good decisions and protect the interests of the animals, as well.

One hopes that the time will come when we no longer need live-animal research.

I don’t think anybody out there has the right to speak out against animal testing unless they’re personally willing to be the “guinea pig” for those experiments.

We should try to test on synthetic materials or animals who’ve already died of natural causes as much as possible. But SOMEWHERE down the line, you’ve got to haev live test subjects.

Actually we talked about this issue in one of my biology classes today. I thought it was interesting that there are a LOT of controls on how mice can be used in labs but virtually zero on zebrafish. Are some animals more important than others?

This is a very important question and I’m glad you asked it. I’m a scientist in a field that uses a lot of animals in research (behavioral neuroscience). I personally have used both flies and rats in my research, although now I collect data from human participants.

I am also a strict vegetarian for the sole reason that I think animal suffering is fundamentally no different from human suffering. I believe there is a difference in degree, but not in kind.

To me, the ethics of animal research are determined by balancing the cost of the animal’s suffering/life against the benefit of the knowledge we gain from doing research. Sometimes the benefits are more apparent than others, and usually benefits come in incremental changes.

For instance, the research I do on people began as research on rats. That work uncovered some basic mechanisms of emotional memory, which in and of itself may not be interesting—but it has contributed to research that’s going on in my lab right now on Alzheimer’s disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, and autism. Sometimes it’s necessary to uncover some very basic information (mechanisms of emotional memory) before we can translate it into something that’s clearly useful to us (understanding Alzheimer’s, PTSD, and autism).

For the most part, this research is very tightly controlled. Every research facility I have ever known of is subject to regulation by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. These committees exist to ensure that animal research is done ethically. They aim to Reduce the number of animals used, Refine methods to minimize suffering, and Replace animals with other models whenever possible.

Animal research is expensive, tedious, and unpleasant. I really think no one would do it if a viable alternative existed. Until then, I believe it is justified as long as it’s done humanely and with a clear benefit in sight.

Actually, there are quite a few people who are perfectly willing to be “guinea pigs,” as long as they get paid. Thanks to Robert Rodriguez it is now an almost required step in becoming a guerrilla filmmaker.

I have a problem with deliberate and unjustifiable cruelty to animals. There must be a sufficient level of potential benefit for me to think it worth hurting animals to gain that benefit. Where the line between benefit is worth the harm and benefit is not worth the harm should be drawn is a judgment call. Without talking about specific cases, I can’t tell you what I think.

I know that factors such as how “human” a living research subject seems to be are important. I’m more concerned about dogs than about fish or flies. More concerned about dogs than mice or other rodents. I might even place other hominids or cetaceans in a more important place than dogs. It’s hard to tell.

Rareness of an animal also plays a role. I think experimentation on endangered species is hard to justify. Then again, I’d be more concerned about polar bears than frogs or bees or bats—all of which are dying off in huge numbers.

The kind of benefit is important to me. Experimenting with animals in order to learn about cancer seems more important than experimenting with animals in order to learn about the impact of cosmetics.

And while we’re at it, let’s throw in the idea of factory farming of animals. Whether it’s mink, chickens, pigs or cows, I’m not happy about industrialized animal husbandry techniques. I don’t think it’s healthy for humans, nor does it treat animals in a way that I consider respectful of their feelings.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say I think that animals have rights. And I’m careful not to project my own feelings too much onto animals, although it is hard not to. But I certainly don’t think animals are the equivalent of humans, and to the degree that they are different, I feel less compunction about experimenting with them. When it comes to flies, I have no problem with any form of experimentation, no mater how cruel I would consider it if it were done to a human subject.

No, and no

I have what I think might be a controversial position on this, but I believe animals are here for our use.

That doesn’t mean they should be hurt maliciously or put through unnecessary pain. I think we should use animals to better our lives, but we should not be cruel in doing so.

Like @daloon, that is why I have a problem with factory farming. We are going to kill these animals to make delicious steaks and chicken fingers; the least we can do is let them walk around, enjoy the fresh air and give them nutritional food (after all, that nutrition will be passed on to use when we consume them!).

@YARNLADY: So you think it’s not humane, but it shouldn’t be stopped or limited? That’s an interesting point of view. Care to explain?

@La_chica_gomela That is correct, I believe that the research is often not humane to the animal, but is non-the-less necessary to the human, therefore, should not be stopped. As for limited, yes, as far as the research will not be compromised, I agree with @drdoombot

Without the medical research using a dog called Alpha dozens of millions of diabetics would have died. The doctors in Canada in the early twenties turned a healthy dog into a diabetic dog and were able to keep it alive by insulin injections. To me this is acceptable medical research. If you’re interested in the story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin#Discovery_and_characterization

I hate the idea of animals suffering but when it comes to medical testing I cannot say that I am completely against it for the simple reason that if I or someone close to me became very ill and needed medicine that had been tested on animals I would accept it in order to save my life or that of someone close to me.

It’s all very well for someone to say that they are completely against medical testing on animals but unless you KNOW for a fact that you would refuse medicine that could potentially save your life because it had been tested on animals then you can really claim to be 100% against it?

I believe in humane treatment of animals whenever possible, and I think people who are cruel to animals are scum.

That being said, if hooking some monkeys brain to a car battery is going to save a human being from dying of cancer a few years down the line, then I’ve got two words for you: red is positive and black is negative.

I think some animal research is allowable as long as it is not something known to harm the animal. I do value human life over an animals, i.e. police dog taking a bullet for an officer etc. because the dog was not “offered up” as a victim.

Putting makeup in a rabbit’s eyes to see if it will blind it is crewel and wrong, and should not be allowed

Yes it is wrong. Use convicted killers instead.

It is inhumane and wrong and should be stopped…...now!