The Ethics of Animal Testing

Rhotheta

The more unlike humans an animal is the more acceptable it is to cause suffering to an animal during experiments.

It is drummed into us in the media that there is nothing wrong with difference, diversity is a good thing we are told. Yet the similarity of animals to humans is often a fundamental basis for determining whether it's ok to inflict suffering upon them. I find it strange that this belief isn't challenged.

Aongus Von Bismarck

Rhotheta wrote: »

The more unlike humans an animal is the more acceptable it is to cause suffering to an animal during experiments.

It is drummed into us in the media that there is nothing wrong with difference, diversity is a good thing we are told. Yet the similarity of animals to humans is often a fundamental basis for determining whether it's ok to inflict suffering upon them. I find it strange that this belief isn't challenged.

I think the (un)acceptability is more based on their intelligence levels.

Take for instance the documentary Blackfish. It caused a lot of soul-searching and debate in the states about the treatment of Orcas in Seaworld. I don't think anyone would argue that humans and Killer Whales are similar, yet people felt strongly about that issue.

DrumSteve

I don't agree with it.

Rhotheta

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I think the (un)acceptability is more based on their intelligence levels.

Take for instance the documentary Blackfish. It caused a lot of soul-searching and debate in the states about the treatment of Orcas in Seaworld. I don't think anyone would argue that humans and Killer Whales are similar, yet people felt strongly about that issue.

That also should be challenged, why is it more acceptable to cause suffering to a less intelligent animal.

Wacker The Attacker

I'm off for a steak

f*ck animals

bogwalrus

It's basic common sense to me. I don't want to cause any animals any pain at any time. I dont want any animal to cause me pain at any time (looking at you lions).

What I think is madness in this day and age is the torture of these animals behind closed doors just so a cleaning product company can bring out a new yet similar product that the market just does not need.f**k off like. There is enough ****e in the market so stop with the torture of these animals.

Hellrazer

Theres a few huge companies with labs over here that carry out animal testing. One in particular believe that they are above the law when it comes to it as they are a private Lab solely used to test products on animals.

Its made me stop buying any product that has its ingredients tested on animals.

Capercaille

A difficult question to answer. There is no black or white probably somewhere in between. My dog has a problem with one of the valves in his heart. He is on alot of medication and as a result lives an almost perfect quality of life. No doubt the mediactions were tested on plenty of dogs and suffering no doubt did take place. I prefer though that those dogs have suffered to make my dog's quality of life better.

AnonoBoy

Rhotheta wrote: »

The more unlike humans an animal is the more acceptable it is to cause suffering to an animal during experiments.

That's why nobody condones testing on David Beckham.

"Look, he thinks he's people!"

Mikros

Rhotheta wrote: »

The more unlike humans an animal is the more acceptable it is to cause suffering to an animal during experiments.

It is drummed into us in the media that there is nothing wrong with difference, diversity is a good thing we are told. Yet the similarity of animals to humans is often a fundamental basis for determining whether it's ok to inflict suffering upon them. I find it strange that this belief isn't challenged.

No one wants to see an animal suffer. And most well run, regulated research involving animal testing will have strong protocols in place to minimise it. But unless you are proposing testing on humans what is the alternative? Any drug in circulation today that potentially saves million of lives will have been extensively tested in animals prior to human trials. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of research if you think you can go from an idea to a drug suitable for human consumption without extensive testing in between.

It comes down to the 3 R's
- Replacement: can the research be completed by non animal methods
- Reduction: design the research so that animal testing is minimised
- Refinement: design the research to minimise pain or suffering and enhance the welfare of the animals.

The choice of animal is largely determined by the experimental aims of the research and general practicalities, not how "unlike" they are to humans. For example mice are commonly used for genetic research because they share a large % of their genes with humans and they are cheap and easy to care for. Other animals serve different purposes - cats are often used in neurological research for example.

If you argue there is no moral justification for animal testing under any circumstances, you have to accept the advancements in healthcare we all rely on can not happen in most cases without animal testing and as a result people will suffer or die that might otherwise be saved.

AndonHandon

Mikros wrote: »

No one wants to see an animal suffer. And most well run, regulated research involving animal testing will have strong protocols in place to minimise it. But unless you are proposing testing on humans what is the alternative? Any drug in circulation today that potentially saves million of lives will have been extensively tested in animals prior to human trials. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of research if you think you can go from an idea to a drug suitable for human consumption without extensive testing in between.

It comes down to the 3 R's
- Replacement: can the research be completed by non animal methods
- Reduction: design the research so that animal testing is minimised
- Refinement: design the research to minimise pain or suffering and enhance the welfare of the animals.

The choice of animal is largely determined by the experimental aims of the research and general practicalities, not how "unlike" they are to humans. For example mice are commonly used for genetic research because they share a large % of their genes with humans and they are cheap and easy to care for. Other animals serve different purposes - cats are often used in neurological research for example.

If you argue there is no moral justification for animal testing under any circumstances, you have to accept the advancements in healthcare we all rely on can not happen in most cases without animal testing and as a result people will suffer or die that might otherwise be saved.

A great point, well made.

bogwalrus

Mikros wrote: »

No one wants to see an animal suffer. And most well run, regulated research involving animal testing will have strong protocols in place to minimise it. But unless you are proposing testing on humans what is the alternative? Any drug in circulation today that potentially saves million of lives will have been extensively tested in animals prior to human trials. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of research if you think you can go from an idea to a drug suitable for human consumption without extensive testing in between.

It comes down to the 3 R's
- Replacement: can the research be completed by non animal methods
- Reduction: design the research so that animal testing is minimised
- Refinement: design the research to minimise pain or suffering and enhance the welfare of the animals.

The choice of animal is largely determined by the experimental aims of the research and general practicalities, not how "unlike" they are to humans. For example mice are commonly used for genetic research because they share a large % of their genes with humans and they are cheap and easy to care for. Other animals serve different purposes - cats are often used in neurological research for example.

If you argue there is no moral justification for animal testing under any circumstances, you have to accept the advancements in healthcare we all rely on can not happen in most cases without animal testing and as a result people will suffer or die that might otherwise be saved.

Yes but animal testing for cleaning products and deodorants should be banned completely. There is two sorts of animal testing one for advancing medicine , the other for generic house hold products.

Hellrazer

Hellrazer wrote: »

Its made me stop buying any product that has its ingredients tested on animals.

As far as I know all ingredients are tested on animals. The ones that say "not tested on animals" use previous animal testing research to get through health and safety requirements. So you'd basically have to mix your own soap at home to have one that hasn't had it's ingredients tested on animals.

bogwalrus

bogwalrus wrote: »

Yes but animal testing for cleaning products and deodorants should be banned completely. There is two sorts of animal testing one for advancing medicine , the other for generic house hold products.

So you're ok with a world where a mother washes down her baby's highchair not knowing whether or not her child will break out in a rash, or get an allergic reaction, or get poisoned/blinded by touching the chair and then putting their hands in their mouth/eyes? You'd buy a skincare product without knowing whether or not your face was going to break out in boils? You'd happily use 'generic house hold products' while having no idea of whether or not they were safe for use?

Rhotheta

Mikros wrote: »

No one wants to see an animal suffer. And most well run, regulated research involving animal testing will have strong protocols in place to minimise it. But unless you are proposing testing on humans what is the alternative? Any drug in circulation today that potentially saves million of lives will have been extensively tested in animals prior to human trials. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of research if you think you can go from an idea to a drug suitable for human consumption without extensive testing in between.

It comes down to the 3 R's
- Replacement: can the research be completed by non animal methods
- Reduction: design the research so that animal testing is minimised
- Refinement: design the research to minimise pain or suffering and enhance the welfare of the animals.

The choice of animal is largely determined by the experimental aims of the research and general practicalities, not how "unlike" they are to humans. For example mice are commonly used for genetic research because they share a large % of their genes with humans and they are cheap and easy to care for. Other animals serve different purposes - cats are often used in neurological research for example.

If you argue there is no moral justification for animal testing under any circumstances, you have to accept the advancements in healthcare we all rely on can not happen in most cases without animal testing and as a result people will suffer or die that might otherwise be saved.

I'm not arguing that there is no moral justification as morals are subjective and often arbitrary. It's the inconsistency and bizarre justification that I'm challenging. I find it bizarre to assert that because an animal isn't intelligent enough that it is ok to cause suffering to them.

Sugar Free

Mikros makes an excellent point. I've found in general that the people most vehemently against animal testing are often the least educated on the matter and rarely come from a scientific background (OP that's not aimed at you specifically, just a comment on some of the more 'hard core' people out there).

The concept of animal testing is not something I'm comfortable with and I don't think I could ever work in that specific area, however I accept that it is essential in many, many cases.

Pumpkinseeds

I make a point of looking for products that have the cruelty free symbol on them. People have consumer power, if you don't buy the product because they test on animals and you let them know that you don't buy their products because of their policies of testing on animals, then you can make a difference.

Animal testing occurs on products across the board, from cosmetics to pet food. Before someone pulls the 'but what about eating meat' line, I'm a vegetarian, and no, I don't wear leather products either.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I've found that people are very fond of criticising current methods, regardless of what it is, but when asked to come up with a realistic solution they are incapable of it.

Pumpkinseeds

THFC wrote: »

I've found that people are very fond of criticising current methods, regardless of what it is, but when asked to come up with a realistic solution they are incapable of it.

Regarding toiletries/cosmetics, test on people not animals, as an increasing number of manufacturers are doing.

bogwalrus

true-or-false wrote: »

So you're ok with a world where a mother washes down her baby's highchair not knowing whether or not her child will break out in a rash, or get an allergic reaction, or get poisoned/blinded by touching the chair and then putting their hands in their mouth/eyes? You'd buy a skincare product without knowing whether or not your face was going to break out in boils? You'd happily use 'generic house hold products' while having no idea of whether or not they were safe for use?

My point is that companies are always wanting to release the next big seller. There are perfectly good technologies that have Been discovered decades ago for cleaning, moisturising, disinfecting etc. Companies wanting to make more money is the drive that leads to the continued testing on animals.

And to perfectly honest I would rather have dry skin than to have an animal be tortured.

Aphex

I despise animal testing.

Mikros

Rhotheta wrote: »

I'm not arguing that there is no moral justification as morals are subjective and often arbitrary. It's the inconsistency and bizarre justification that I'm challenging. I find it bizarre to assert that because an animal isn't intelligent enough that it is ok to cause suffering to them.

I don't think anyone who is involved in animal testing uses that as a justification. It would either be a very extreme viewpoint to hold, or more than likely an uninformed view. In all experiments conducted in Europe anyway (as that is what I am familiar with) the welfare of the animal and the minimisation of suffering is a key concern when designing an animal experiment. It is not just a consideration - it is the law across Europe. Here is a quote from the EU Directive on Animal Testing:-

2010/63/EU wrote:

Animals have an intrinsic value which must be respected. There are also the ethical concerns of the general public as regards the use of animals in procedures. Therefore, animals should always be treated as sentient creatures and their use in procedures should be restricted to areas which may ultimately benefit human or animal health, or the environment. The use of animals for scientific or educational purposes should therefore only be considered where a non-animal alternative is unavailable.

dowhatyoulove

Did my masters using Mice pancreas. Rather them than a human one.

Galwayguy35

I hate animal cruelty on any level, but I accept that sometimes it's a necessary evil trying to find cures for serious diseases which will save lives, I just hope the suffereing the animals have to endure is kept to a mininium.

As for testing perfumes/soaps etc, find another way, torturing defenceless creatures so people can smell nice is wrong.

Hellrazer

true-or-false wrote: »

As far as I know all ingredients are tested on animals. The ones that say "not tested on animals" use previous animal testing research to get through health and safety requirements. So you'd basically have to mix your own soap at home to have one that hasn't had it's ingredients tested on animals.

There's lists of products around that are not tested on animals or their ingredients are not tested on animals.I try to stick to products that either say it on the label or is on the Peta list.

Hellrazer

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I hate animal cruelty on any level, but I accept that sometimes it's a necessary evil trying to find cures for serious diseases which will save lives, I just hope the suffereing the animals have to endure is kept to a mininium.

It's a known fact that a lot of the animal testing for medicines is useless.Most animals have substantially different reactions to these products than a human will.

There's no excuse ever for testing on defenseless animals.

Aphex

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I hate animal cruelty on any level, but I accept that sometimes it's a necessary evil trying to find cures for serious diseases which will save lives, I just hope the suffereing the animals have to endure is kept to a mininium.

As for testing perfumes/soaps etc, find another way, torturing defenceless creatures so people can smell nice is wrong.

I doubt it. I wonder what happens to the animals when the testing is over..

Galwayguy35

Hellrazer wrote: »

It's a known fact that a lot of the animal testing for medicines is useless.Most animals have substantially different reactions to these products than a human will.

There's no excuse ever for testing on defenseless animals.

Well if that's the case then then it should be stopped immediatly, I was just going on what I read that sometimes there was no other way to find cures for diseases like cancer etc.

Galwayguy35

Aphex wrote: »

I doubt it. I wonder what happens to the animals when the testing is over..

Not sure, nothing good though I imagine.

Mikros

Hellrazer wrote: »

It's a known fact that a lot of the animal testing for medicines is useless.Most animals have substantially different reactions to these products than a human will.

There's no excuse ever for testing on defenseless animals.

That's a very simple argument, but it ignores the fact that science (unlike how it is often portrayed) is not a well ordered process. Research often requires many false starts and extensive experimentation before a picture starts to emerge. Animal testing is just one method that might be required - in many cases there is just simply no other alternative.

Without this basic research involving animals (which has been going on for centuries) we would not have medicine as we know it. It's that simple. Do the countless human lives improved and saved excuse the animal testing? I would say yes - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to reduce animal testing as much as possible, and if that is not possible to minimise any suffering of the animals in the experiments.

BetterThanThou

I don't think animal testing itself is too bad, I think the conditions it's often carried out in is what's the real enemy. The animals need good conditions, suitable enclosures, good nutrition, socialization, depending on the species and anything else the animal needs to live a happy life. Animal testing does help advance medicine as many have said. Though, I agree, anything that's not necessary should be tested on humans, there's no reason to test a deodorant on animals.