Animal Testing

[Nihilego]

Is animal testing for products under development acceptable? Which circumstances, if any, do you think it's acceptable in and why or why not? What alternatives could you suggest?

Discuss. I'll add in my thoughts later, but for now I'll leave it to start the discussion off unbiased.

 

[Shiny Celebi]

I personally think alternatives to animal testing need to be found. Not only is is it cruel to animals to test meds/cosmetics/other things on them but animals arent really the same as humans and may have different reactions than a human would. I just think we should find other ways to test things and move away from animals.

 

[droomph]

^ actually there are some animals which have pretty much the same reaction to things physically as humans. However I even so I think that it's perfectly fine only until we have an alternative. At that point we have to change how we test things.

 

[Mana1]

Hurrah! My dissertation may be useful!

Animal testing is definitely a necessary evil. It's all well and good saying alternatives need to be found - but what? The only viable alternative is directly testing on humans, and people can't really successfully argue that a willing volunteer is a good idea - the companies wouldn't either, especially when having to pay compensation.

Animal testing is, for the most part, only used when it is definitely necessary.

People complain when makeup and things is tests on animals, but it is the demand for new products that drives this. Things like waterproof makeup, longer lasting products, etc. all need to be re-tested on to make sure they are safe.

And, to make things clear, products that make out they were not tested on animals are right - however they are all based on products that were tested on animals. There are no innovative products that are animal-testing free.

As for drugs testing and medical research, it's practically essential.

Spoiler:

A survey I conducted found that people who approve of animal testing are mostly:
1. Male
2. Knowledgable in the Sciences
3. Eat meat.

[/random

 

[CliveKoopa]

I have always been against any kind of animal testing. I fully support the actions of organisations such as SHAC and the ALF and I would do the exact same things if I had the opportunity.

 

[mastsethi]

But you know, Animal testing is vital and extremely important. Do you expect to use untested products, cosmetics and medicines?

 

[CliveKoopa]

They should test them on murderers and rapists instead of animals or those on death row.

 

[Yoshikko]

I don't think there is a better alternative yet, not one that I can come up with at least. Judge away, but yes I think that, objectively, humans are superior and more important and that this is just hierarchy. Those animals aren't tested on out of cruelty but to improve products for humans to use so that they won't affect us in a bad or dangerous way. Whether it's necessary for us to use those products in the first place is a whole other question (which it is NOT imo, but ala), but we do use them and so they have to be tested. I'm sure that if there was a better way, they would have changed their ways already.

 

[mastsethi]

They should test them on murderers and rapists instead of animals or those on death row.

Hahahaha That's a fantastic idea. I wont mind that..

 

[♣Gawain♣]

Animal testing in some cases to me are acceptable. We can't literally live if we don't test in on lab rats. And I mean rats and guinea pigs only.

They should test them on murderers and rapists instead of animals or those on death row.

They can change lives you know. Well, except for those on death row...

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I also see it as a necessary evil, animals such as rats will continue to be experimented on at least until we find an alternative...perhaps inmates, perhaps clones...

 

[CliveKoopa]

Animal testing in some cases to me are acceptable. We can't literally live if we don't test in on lab rats. And I mean rats and guinea pigs only.



They can change lives you know. Well, except for those on death row...

Some of them can, I admit but there are a few who are so sick and twisted in the head that no amount of rehabilitation can change.

 

[Yoshikko]

They should test them on murderers and rapists instead of animals or those on death row.

And no I don't think they should, criminals are still people and they have rights. If they didn't then they wouldn't be around for long lol.

 

[Calipornia]

There are a variety of people I would classify "animals". If we put them in a zoo, I am sure they would make a fine attraction. That way, they can actually contribute something to society.

But I suppose that is not practical.

 

[Oryx]

I'm sure that if there was a better way, they would have changed their ways already.

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. If there was a way that upped their profit, they would surely do it. But just because their profit is higher doesn't mean that it's the best way. Companies have been proven to push the limits as far as possible until people fight back against unethical business practices, because they want to make as much profit as possible.

 

[Calipornia]

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. If there was a way that upped their profit, they would surely do it. But just because their profit is higher doesn't mean that it's the best way. Companies have been proven to push the limits as far as possible until people fight back against unethical business practices, because they want to make as much profit as possible.

Excellent job, defining the point of a business.
You would have surely done the same were you a businesswoman. Profit is the most important thing.

 

[Lord V-Man]

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. If there was a way that upped their profit, they would surely do it. But just because their profit is higher doesn't mean that it's the best way. Companies have been proven to push the limits as far as possible until people fight back against unethical business practices, because they want to make as much profit as possible.

Indeed. It is also a lot easier to prevent media turmoil. Testing on animals went wrong -> angry activists (when aren't they angry)
Testing on people went wrong -> media disaster and angry activists

 

[Livewire]

It's the lesser of two evils. I'd much rather test an animal than a human, testing on a human crosses a line that should be crossed, provided that it's a substance or a product that's potentially harmful.. Depends on your moral center, though.

 

[Nihilego]

I'm gonna jump in with the whole "necessary evil" thing.

Although I'd like to bring something else to the table now, so to speak. What sort of products should be tested on animals? I'm thinking in terms of medicine and cosmetics right now - which is ok, if either?

 

[Cyru]

I think only the necessary products that are needed for humans to keep up an optimal quality of life like medicines and new drugs to cure various illnesses, this i agree with. However i think testing for cosmetics on animals is quite unnecessary and cruel imo, just because it's only for people's appearance and that seems kinda selfish and inconsiderate.