Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings?

Sure. Why not?

@the100thmonkey are you the first donor? hehe. I also think why not.

Yes.

No. Not even just for moral reasons, but also for safety reasons. I could give you an entire list of medications that were first tested on animals to guarantee safety in humans, that only went horribly wrong. And if people don’t think that happens anymore, they’re very mistaken.

@DrasticDreamer Part of the testing on non-human animals can help them as well in the quest for keeping your animal healthy and able to stop their pain. Just think of how many more horribly wrong things could have happened, had it not been for testing.

As long as it’s done competently, with clear understanding of the psychological issues involved, I don’t think there’s much of a problem with it. We help animals to help ourselves, not the other way around.

@RANGIEBABY Oh, I didn’t say it wasn’t beneficial in any way whatsoever. That said, it doesn’t make it right, either. I’m not the kind of person who believes that just because people have the power to do something it means they should, necessarily.

i dunno, if it kills a few hundred apes im not sure id mind if it cured aids or cancer…..

@DrasticDreamer I’m not the kind of person who believes that just because people have the power to do something it means they should, necessarily. When humans have the intelligence to improve their health issues, I believe it is a necessary thing to do. Human beings share about 99% of their genes with chimpanzees and only slightly fewer with other monkeys. As a result, the reactions of these creatures are a very good guide to possible reactions of human patients. Even lower down the scale, other animals share the same basic physiology with humans. Furthermore, it would be immoral to risk the life of a human being when a medicine or procedure could instead be tested on a non-human animal.

@RANGIEBABY Like I said, I can provide a list for you, where humans believed that because animals were somewhat physiologically similar to us that testing on them would be a good indication that medication would be safe for us – if the animals suffered no major side effects. They were wrong. Not once, twice, three times, or even four. One of the really bad cases happened as late as the mid 90s.

When humans have the intelligence to improve their health issues, I believe it is a necessary thing to do. I don’t disagree at all. As a matter of fact, because humans are so intelligent, they should have come up with an alternative to animal testing by now. We’re smart enough and we have the technology to do so, but the majority of the time people are just too lazy to make the change. Did you know they have laws against testing on animals in certain countries now? Have you seen anyone drop dead because they chose not to torture animals in the name of medication and beauty products? No, because they implemented better technology to administer tests.

Furthermore, it would be immoral to risk the life of a human being when a medicine or procedure could instead be tested on a non-human animal. That is a purely subjective opinion. I think it’s immoral for people to use whatever is around them, no matter what, for their own gain. Think of the environment – that’s why it’s in such horrible condition. People thought they had an inherent right to do whatever they wanted with it, and now it’s severely damaged. People are a part of life on this planet – we’re not the gods of it.

Testing on animals is an archaic process that serves no purpose in an increasingly technological and scientific world.

@DrasticDreamer Animals up and down the chain are killed for all sorts of reasons. Some are for terrible reasons such as, trophies. However, some are for humane reasons such as, finding out what medication might help to save the life of a little child or even learn how to prevent the disease in the first place. There will always be a chain of command in this world we live in, and when we do our best to make life better for the top of the chain, it will filter down.
Have you seen anyone’s life saved by the invention of Interferon (a protein released by animal cells, usually in response to the entry of a virus, that has the property of inhibiting virus replication.)? That is a cancer fighting drug.

It is not morally acceptable to me but humans have shown power over animals since the dawn of time. Without testing on animals, we wouldn’t have as much progress and I struggle with this issue, as well. I am against testing on animals if there are other alternatives or for products that have no direct medicinal value to save thousands (like for cosmetics or shampoos) – however, I myself took part in research on mice and I gave them cancer and studied their cell proliferation – my research got our lab closer to diagnosing pancreatic cancer earlier in patients (PC being a pretty fatal cancer because of it being difficult to diagnose early) ...this was a long time ago…I don’t think I could go into this kind of research now.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I am not advocating testing on animals for all sorts of reasons. people can test cosmetics on their own skin in a small patch. All of us have different reactions to things on our skin anyway. But, when it comes to a source for saving lives, I am all for it.

@RANGIEBABY Yes but when cosmetics are made or developed, that’s what happens. Yes, I suppose when it’s your child and some mice, you’d pick your child over the mice but in a general sense, the way in which people take advantage of animals bothers me.

I just assume that it is a necessary step in the test of new medicines and treatments. I agree not for cosmetics. I think there should be very strict laws in place to assure that the animals are treated in the most humane fashion possible. But that doesn’t happen in the food industry so I would not be surprised if it does not happen in the pharmaceutical industry either.

Humans can be selfish and hateful creatures.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir If you look around there are some cosmetics that are not animal tested, like Arbonne products for one.
Although in principle it is more important to reduce human suffering that to prevent animal suffering, in practice it is possible (and absolutely right) to keep animal suffering to an absolute minimum. Animal experimenters should aspire to the highest levels of animal welfare in their laboratories, using anesthetics wherever possible and keeping animals in clean, comfortable, and healthy conditions. In short, it is possible to experiment on animals without being cruel to animals.

No, it’s not morally acceptable at all. And yes, i know it may have even benefitted me somewhere along the line (i don’t know what drugs i was given when i was younger), but that doesn’t make it ok. I also don’t agree with the idea that it’s more important to reduce human suffering that it is to prevent animal suffering – i have a big problem with society regarding themselves as more important than everything else around them, and i agree with @DrasticDreamer – who is it that made us gods and gave us the right to do as we please for our own selfish benefits, no matter what the costs to other living beings who never did anything wrong to us? My opinion may sound drastic, but that’s the way i feel. One can’t expect to reap the benefits if one is not willing to suffer or work therefor, is that not so? So why torture innocent animals so that humanity can gain free benefits? This arrangement is very convenient for humanity, sure, but is the cost morally acceptable? Absolutely not.

I always figured that if it was meant for humans it was tested on humans, but what the hell do I know anyways?

It’s not morally acceptable to me.

If medical experimenters don’t have the technology to test the numerously deadly products concocted by pharma or whomever, then test them on convicted and confessed murderers.

After all, I’ve read that the reason they’ve saved Hitler’s brain is to use it as a test object for some of the wondrous anti-depressants that cause some people to commit suicide. ;-)

I struggle with this issue because, whilst I hate the idea of testing on animals and, in theory, do not agree with it, what would I do if I needed life-saving medication that had been tested on animals before proving effective on humans? The honest answer is, I would take the medication.

@NaturallyMe From what you said you will not be taking any medications from now on, as it would be my guess, all of them have been tested on animals.

For now, it’s efficient to use animals as test subjects. Eventually, it probably wont be, but for now it is probably for the best. It just needs to be done well and for good purpose.

@Brian1946 There is a lot more to these tests than harming animals. What is often overlooked in this debate is the subject of veterinary medicine. It is in the interests of animals themselves that experiments be done on animals to test medicines and surgical procedures for using on animals themselves, not just on humans. Animal experimentation can be in the interests of animals as well as of humans.

@RANGIEBABY A fair point. Although, it’s so sad how lately veterinary medicine has become more about how we can genetically modify this or that trait so that the animal can produce for our consumption.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I have to agree with you there. I feel they are treading on thin ice when they start messing with genetics with animals for human consumption. As well as it just is not right.

I think what so many of us fail to see is that there is always a bigger picture to all of these issues. No we don’t want animals to suffer, no we don’t want our mom or dad to die of some disease that could have been prevented. So we need to look at the big picture and see what and how things are being done. If we don’t think it is done the best way possible, then we need to raise our voices and make an issue of it.

@RANGIEBABY It seems counter-productive to protest any kind qualified scientific research. Better to protest the things that get in the way of research, so that we can move beyond the dependence of crude practices. Such as experiments that require animals to suffer.

@zophu yes, perhaps one day they will be able to do life saving research without the use of animals.

This article is one I found a while ago when I was going through a “mankind is cruel” phase. I’m not sure it shares much uncommon knowledge, but it made me feel a little better.

I don’t believe in animal rights, really. I just think that it’s unhealthy for people to treat animals in cruel ways—the same way it is unhealthy for people to treat people in cruel ways. In a competent laboratory environment, cruelty is kept in check, even when suffering is present. That’s okay as far as I’m concerned. Not because I don’t care about the animals, and not because I’m afraid that if I protest I’ll die one day of a disease that could have been resolved if I hadn’t said anything. If it’s in a laboratory environment, and it’s an animal suffering the research and not a human, I think it’s okay. Even when it comes to more intelligent animals, if the science is done well, and the psychology of the researchers is kept in check, it isn’t a problem. What needs to be focused on is the competency of the research, and that falls into the hands of experts. It’s not an issue to be handled completely democratically.

@RANGIEBABY I avoid any drugs as far as i possibly can, other than a few pain killers for period cramps – i don’t take drugs when i get ill (which barely ever happens anyway, maybe once in the last 5 years have a i had one bad cold), i take them as an absolute last resort if everything else i’ve tried fails to work. My main reason for doing so happens not to be because it’s tested on animals but because of other reasons, however i still refuse to use them where i can, which is just about always. So i’d say i’m doing my bit in refusing to support animal cruelty, which is my main reason for not eating meat either.
Your question was “is it morally acceptable” – i said NO. I said the current situation is merely convenient, but that does not make it morally acceptable, whether i use it or not does not change the moral acceptability of it or not. Unless i’m in dire straights i will not use it – most people use animal tested drugs for the silliest things (sore throat, runny nose, a slight little cold, stupid things like that) – taking drugs in those instances does not justify extreme animal cruelty. Taking them for serious health issues is more justifiable, but still not morally acceptable. The point is, we want the benefits without “working” for them, we want them for free, irrespective of the costs of innocent lives. That makes it morally unacceptable, period.

NO not at all. I hate that. If they have to experiment on animals to benefit animals I understand that, but if we want the perfect shampoo or good meds then we should buck the fuck up and do it!