Based off of the discussion in class, the two coatings will have to undergo another round of testing to come to a decision. However, time, money and resources are always an important thing to consider. Possible test that could be run is trial that will prove whether or not the rats died because of stress induced by the coating or if it was some other cause. We can also run the exact same test again to see if the results change. However, if we were supposed to make a decision right away I would have to go with coating B. No one will want to buy a product where 25% of the subjects died. Even if they cant prove that it was directly from the coating, individuals would not wanna take that risk on a coating that did not prove to be significantly different from the other coating. Therefore, because more test would have to be done, with most likely different animals that are more expensive, and more money would have to be spent to pay the workers for their time, and now there is more time being spent learning about the product when the product can be closer to the market where it will make money, I would have to go with coating B.
Given that there are more coatings, I would have to push for more testing though because now there can be a product better than the ones we just tested. Also, I do think that more research should be done on how the drug affects humans since it could have different outcomes from rats. Safety of the individual is primary concern, but testing may come to the point where we have to end up just testing the product on human subjects. However, we can not test a potentially lethal product on humans, and we may never know until it is tested on humans, which is why it is best to have more coatings so that we are not stuck with only these two options. That way we can find a safe alternative without spending more money on testing different animals.