Experimentation on Animals

Is it morally correct for the Experimentation on animals for research and/or product testing? Should a company be allowed to carry out animal tests?

Discuss

NOTICE:Please carry on the discussion with accordance to both Forum and SOT rules, otherwise you may be banished.

Here's what I think: you should have a reasonably good reason to believe that the product or procedure would not actually cause undue harm to the animal in question. Otherwise, it doesn't really have an excuse.

Ohhhh rough one. I tell ya, I love animals and I hate animal experimentation. Especially when they do it for cosmetics or something dumb. At the same time, if you tell me that you want to give my child a shot of something and it's never been tested on any live thing before, you might want to run for your life cause I'm gonna shove that needle in YOU.

Okay I love animals but I love humans more. If you were to experiment on animals then I would have to say, "if it benefited the whole of mankind then do it. However if it is a cosmetic product which satisfies someone's vanity needs then do not allow it".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeSalvionjr

Is it morally correct for the Experimentation on animals for research and/or product testing? Should a company be allowed to carry out animal tests?

Discuss

NOTICE:Please carry on the discussion with accordance to both Forum and SOT rules, otherwise you may be banished.

---

Absolutely not. If you come up with something that you aren't willing to try on yourself, you shouldn't be willing to try it on anything living, with perhaps the exception of condemned criminals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Demonhero

Absolutely not. If you come up with something that you aren't willing to try on yourself, you shouldn't be willing to try it on anything living, with perhaps the exception of condemned criminals.

---

Ha, nice.

I agree with Professor X. I dislike the idea of animal experiments with cosmetic products and so on, but if it's really important, I don't see why not.

It all depends the effects... and what can be achieved from it.

I don't agree with animal experimentation either. Just pay some people to be human guinea pigs if you want to test some products. Also make them sign a release form to avoid being liable to damages caused.

I think the term for such experimentation on animals is Vivisection (if I remember right from my English class 22 years ago), and I find it morally reprehensible. There are enough people available for clinical trials of such products (paid of course), and such products should only be tested on humans once science rules it will have no conceivable ill-effects. With modern science, there is no excuse for simply throwing a product together and rubbing it on the face of rabbits and mice to test for a reaction. We can remote control a unit on mars but we can't tell if something is going to sting/burn/cause cancer? We sure can, it just costs money, and laboratories testing on animals are simply trying to cut costs at the expensive of animals. The argument that it would increase costs of research and development is valid, though the outrageous profit margins seen by such companies would still make such R&D a good investment if they were to conduct experiments ethically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DCJerboa

I think the term for such experimentation on animals is Vivisection (if I remember right from my English class 22 years ago), and I find it morally reprehensible. There are enough people available for clinical trials of such products (paid of course), and such products should only be tested on humans once science rules it will have no conceivable ill-effects. With modern science, there is no excuse for simply throwing a product together and rubbing it on the face of rabbits and mice to test for a reaction. We can remote control a unit on mars but we can't tell if something is going to sting/burn/cause cancer? We sure can, it just costs money, and laboratories testing on animals are simply trying to cut costs at the expensive of animals. The argument that it would increase costs of research and development is valid, though the outrageous profit margins seen by such companies would still make such R&D a good investment if they were to conduct experiments ethically.

---

Agreed.

And furthermore to this particular point, though vivisection is cost effective, it in no way effects the cost of the product as a whole and is just as expensive as a product that is not tested on animals, to which people must ask, "Who's benefit is it cost effective for?" Obviously it is people thinking far more of their own profit than the cost of the finished product being more affordable to the consumer, making the argument of costs somewhat less valid to the general consumer population.