@mmd55 This is a very good point about where we draw the line on what is and what is not ethical in regards to animals. There are some people that would argue that the killing of animals for consumption is unethical as well. However, to answer your initial question, I believe the difference of viewing in the treatment of the animals before their deaths. When animals are killed for their meat, it is typically a quick process, and not very drawn out. For animals in research though, they must undergo different medications, devices, etc. for a drawn-out period of time before they are killed and then dissected. The products being tested on the animals are not always beneficial for the animal, so some people view that as inhumane that the animals have to suffer before ultimately being killed. So while more animals are killed per year for consumption than for research, the negative view of animal research is related to the treatment of the animals before their deaths.

Certain animals have a higher "moral status", such as non-human primates, due to their similarity to humans. Intelligent animals illicit greater sympathy from people and are therefore more greatly contested when used in research, as opposed to cattle and livestock used for food. Animals that are attributed with the 'theory of mind'- the idea that a creature can attribute mental states to other beings- have much stricter regulations when it comes to research. As @elizabetharcher mentioned, the emotional toll that the research activities has on tested animals is thought to be a breach of the dignity of that animal, and since certain animals like primates and dogs have greater emotional intelligence, there has been a push for more guidelines and restrictions that require the researcher to prove that it is absolutely necessary to use these animals in the study's testing conditions. In contrast, animals used for food are thought to be emotionally unintelligent and only perceive physical pain. This is however being more recently contested as research now begins to show the psychological and emotional capabilities of cattle, a basis for many animal rights groups outcry against killing animals for food.

There is that ethical debate on using animals for scientific research and how most people are against the act of that, but have no issue with killing animals for food. There are a few reasons for this, I believe. One reason would be that; animals killed for food, as looked at by a non-vegetarian person, is done for a basic human need. We need food to eat and survive. Another reason, as some people have already mentioned, is that the animals selected for scientific research and in vitro/in vivo trials are typically the more intelligent animals such as rats, pigs, and monkeys. More people find it to be ethically immoral to abuse more sentient animals rather than an animal less sentient, like turkeys or squirrels. (2 animals known for being unintelligent)  

There is that ethical debate on using animals for scientific research and how most people are against the act of that, but have no issue with killing animals for food. There are a few reasons for this, I believe. One reason would be that; animals killed for food, as looked at by a non-vegetarian person, is done for a basic human need. We need food to eat and survive. Another reason, as some people have already mentioned, is that the animals selected for scientific research and in vitro/in vivo trials are typically the more intelligent animals such as rats, pigs, and monkeys. More people find it to be ethically immoral to abuse more sentient animals rather than an animal less sentient, like turkeys or squirrels. (2 animals known for being unintelligent)  

Animal research be looked at in such a negative light while many more animals annually are being killed for food due to the fact that people may be misinformed, they let headlines, hearsay, personal bias, and many other factors sway their perception. It can also be to the fact that they view animals being used for food as a way to sustain life as we our more sophisticated so are our ways of hunting and feeding and the food industry is an example of that. They may feel animals being used in testing is cruel as the animal cannot technically give consent as a human can, and many animals can feel discomfort, pain, depression, etc. 

@justinmb Agreed. Animals used for sustenance is viewed differently as it provides sustainable nutrition to humans. On the other hand, research subjects animals to what may be viewed as cruel and inhumane conditions which contributes to the unfavorable perception of animal use in research/trials.

I found this question very interesting. A brief smaller scale example of the negative light that may be associated with this is when four researchers from the University of Missouri tested hyaluronic acid eyedrops on beagle puppies (less than a year old) to test wound healing, by purposefully partially blinding them. Now this experiment was inconclusive from the beginning because even if the eyedrops worked, their protocol required a larger scale of 24 dogs be experimented on so the results would have still been inconclusive or written off even if the eyedrops worked. Due to the inconclusive stamp received on the results, the blinded dogs were eventually euthanized. When this experiment came to public view it eventually helped to push the Beagle Freedom Bill, which requires cats and dogs used in state-funded research to be put up for adoption instead of being killed. Now I am not saying that the animal food industry are saints, there are a plethora of safety and ethical concerns festering in that sector.  If anything this topic and question pushes us to start taking accountability for our hypocrisy both morally and ethically.

New Article:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/university-of-missouri-researchers-sued-for-blinding-killing-beagles-in-failed-experiment/

I think there can be a sort of disconnect when people talk about food animals and research animals. Maybe people think better of the animals being used feed them, then the animals their drugs are being tested on. What I have experienced mostly is people hearing horror stories of how animals are being treated in research environments, while the food animals live freely  in their homes and are fed and well taken care out until time for harvesting. Some people have been severely misinformed on both aspects. I think if those who heard these headlines did a little research into what is really happening they would be more inclined not to believe everything at the jump.

I believe that animal research is looked at in such a negative light because of the negative association that people have of research labs/facilities from movies and TV. I think the population does not understand the cruel treatment that animals go through for them to be processed to become our food. Slaughterhouses are much worse as far as animal treatment than a lab. Most research labs using animal testing go through rigorous stipulations by the FDA and other regulations to maintain a safe lab. In animal testing, it is to the best of the researcher's ability to keep the animal from suffering. But this is not the same when it comes to having our food processed. 

This is a good question. I think it has a lot to do with how the animals are used. Animals being used as a source of nourishment for another living creature is seen as normal or natural. Everything has to eat, and everything eats something else, be it a plant or other living creature. Animal testing is not something that is often thought of as a necessity. Why should mice suffer to ensure our lipstick is safe? Lipstick is not a necessity. Also, a lot of people who believe that animals should not be used for testing also feel that we shouldn't be eating animals. Anything outside of these animals living a happy free life is unacceptable. While I understand it, I just don't believe it's the reality of life. Animals use and eat other animals daily and we as humans are no exception to that. 

I think the difference in where to draw the line of animals being used for food versus animals being used for testing is how quickly we can as humans get a return on investment. Usually when animals are being killed her food the majority of the animals and their bodies are being used to immediately become some type of food source. However, with animal testing, it is not guaranteed that the animals' life will be directly beneficial to humans. The information that we may or may not glean from animal trials may eventually result in something the general public could find useful, but possibly not. That margin for extra waste can be seen as immoral to put animals through.

@kcrudupmsm-edu I can say that when it comes to animals being used for research vs food it's a fine line and it can be hard to decide which is more useful and important for research or food. It's really about what is in the best use of animal production at that time. Also, the argument in this case is more of a moral vs. ethical topic on the treatment of animals in totality and what is the best process to take that will be in regulations according to the FDA and USDA as a general consensus. 

I feel using animals for testing is seen as worse than utilizing them as a food resource is because researchers do not truly know the effects of what they are doing. A research project for a medication could be bad and make the animal suffer tremendously, lose senses such as going blind, sever pain, etc. There are many things that could happen to the animals health when experimenting on them that could make their quality of life very bad especially in labs where animals are not actually taken care of well.

I think there may be a disconnect for people when it pertains to the consumption of animal products on a regular basis and the way they are able to have such ease in access to them vs the laboratory uses of animals. Because of the size food industry and the demand for produce, many times livestock conditions are not always ideal and the quality of life for the animals is unfortunately not one that comfortable. Of course, commercialization from certain organizations can portray one thing, but thanks to marketing things appear better than they may be. I think people may care about the animals in the food industry as well, but the constant reliance of produce outweighs that concern. Also, in laboratory practices, I believe many people see the animals being used for testing in a long-suffering condition which too is unfortunate and when testing is being done people don't necessarily see a direct impact towards themselves, so it just seems morbid. I don't believe one situation is better or worse because both are necessities in some aspect, but I do think practices could be better.