animal research

[canoehead, BSN, RN]

Posted for Debbie

I'm in an ethics class and I have to do a research paper on the pro's and con's of animal research. (12 people have to work on this - rediculous!!! )

Anyways...

I'm going to try to create a poll, but if it doesn't work can you tell me if you are for or against animal research. And if you have a stipulation (such as for medical research but not for make-up) please note that also.

Thanks a bunch in advance for any assistance!!!!! :kiss

Debbie

[babybee3184]

I think it depends on the kind of research performed on animals. If it is something that is perceived as harmful from the very beginning...Then I completely disagree with animal testing. If it is something that is believed to be harmless, then I think it is OK although I would still prefer animals not to be tested.

On one hand, I think it's cruel to test animals. And on the other...I think human life should be valued over animals. Therefore, I'd rather a product be tested on animals for human safety rather than leaving a product untested and hurting a human life.

I really don't have much knowledge for animal testing...However, if scientists have other avenues for testing products besides animals, then I completely disagree with any testing whatsoever with animals.

Hope that helps some

[talaxandra]

I believe that animals experience pain, and that animal life is valuable, and should not be taken needlessly. For this reason, I am opposed to ongoing animal testing of cosmetics and toiletries, and use cruelty-free products.

However, I also believe that human life is (generally) of greater value than animal life; that there are times where it is only through testing on animals that some experiments can be performed; and that there are times where this cost, though unfortunate, is appropriate. I am therefore in favour of the use of animals in research and development of drugs.

Because I believe that scientists cannot always be trusted to self-regulate, I am also in favour of ethics committees and inspections - for experiements of people and on animals.

Hope this helps :)

[sbic56, BSN, RN]

No testing on an animal is necessary to treat humans in this day of advanced technology. Cosmetic testing is, of course, barbaric and unnecesary. Beyond that, though, we have advanced enough to be able to know beforehand if something is harmful to living tissue without exposing an animal to it. I don't believe there is any need to forsake animals for the preservation of mankind. The reason it is still done is because it is less expensive than other methods of testing; not a good reason IMO. Lastly, I see all life as equally important and oppose the view that human life is of greater value than animal life.

[tencat]

I'm undecided. On the one hand I think that animal testing is a necessary evil when testing drugs and surgical procedures, but if something is known or strongly suspected to be harmful, then it's not ethical to try it out on either animals or people. I would like to see animal research stop, but right now I'm not sure how that could be accomplished without creating an environment where researchers would feel justified in using 'unworthy' groups of people like prisoners for research if no animals were available.

[prmenrs, RN]

I am in favor of animal testing in the medical field, not in the aesthetic industry. And WITH the proviso that any testing be done in a humane manner, and that the animals be allowed to live in as normal conditions as possible. In other words, not kept on a permanent basis in a small cage w/minimal social contact or stimulation (esp re: primates).

[suebird3]

I am for it, in a way. I echo prmens.....and what about the Rh factor?

[Deb123j]

bump :) :) :) :) :) :)

[ktwlpn, LPN]

-I think that years ago it was a valid field- With today's advances in medical research on the cellular level it probably remains the most in-expensive method but I don't believe that cost savings is a valid reason to continue.....Even when organizations like PETA get involved many,many labs STILL disregard even basic care for the animals....The government has not made cruelty to animals cost-prohibitive to these big concerns and until they do it will continue....Both in the labs and the food industry.....I think that our culture does tend to go a bit overboard with how we treat our pets but I don't agree with the cruel slaughtering going on elsewhere even if it is for food and not vanity.(if you want to eat puppies and kittens that's fine with me but they do FEEL and every living creature deserves a quick exit in as painless a method as possible-don't dip them in boiling oil while still alive)..I'll pay extra for food that has been produced from animals that were raised and slaughtered in a humane way.I buy cosmetics that have not been animal tested.....

[labman]

My two cents on the situation.

I personally feel for cosmetic testing on animals is wrong. I feel that you are tourturing animals just so you can look good. I don't and still don't know how I feel on medical studies. I have my pros and cons.

KENT

[Tripletsmom04]

I want to fight against the testing of animals for human gain, but I stuggle. I struggle with this topic because I find it hard to say no to testing that is beneficial to the survival of our species. If scientists can find a cure for cancer, and it requires rats to conduct the research, then I can't fight against it. Beneficence is doing good for the greatest number of people. It is horrible what scientist do to animals, for testing, however, it is hard to fight when they are trying to improve the quality of life.

[Tripletsmom04]

It is, as I posted, hard to say no to testing on animals, when we have come so far to get our species to where they are.