It is the opinion of the writer that this is a very interesting approach that the original author of this post has created. Many people probably do not view this topic from this viewpoint. Considering that some research involves testing of various medications for new treatments, some may view involving animals as research subjects as a negative thing because they may suffer negatively as a result of a failed outcome of a particular drug or technique that is being observed. On the other hand, animals that are being consumed for food may not be frowned upon because many people will look at the idea that eating things such as chicken has some nutritional value to humans; meanwhile, if these same chickens were used to observe the outcomes of a particular drug, if the drug had negative outcomes, the chickens would or could die as a result of this.
@alexbryant-harden I completely agree that people have a negative connotation that is associated with the idea of a laboratory. The portrayal of a research laboratory by TV shows/movies usually seems to have some erratic researcher who doesn't know when to call it quits spearheading projects that tend to be detrimental to society. I think because most of the public don't understand how a lab or research facility works and realize that it's not a free for all, there is a fear of the unknown. As you said, researchers want to keep their subjects alive, if possible, to gather as much data or reuse them if possible because with each study, they are a part of the materials that must be purchased.
Animal research may be looked at in a more negative connotation compared to killing animals to be eaten because this is seen to be more unethical in the eyes of society. Killing animals has always been a natural source of providing food for humans. I think we do not pay much attention to it because it is so common to our everyday lives and usually the people with this opinion are not the ones killing the animals. The food is given to us already in the form of a hamburger or bacon, etc. and this is why people easily overlook the fact that an animal was killed in the process of them getting their dinner.
Although rats, the primary animal for experiments, are much smaller animals compared to cows, chickens, and other animals that we usually eat, testing on this animal is associated much more negatively. When you are aware that animals are being put in potential danger and these tests could affect them very badly, it makes people think about the animals more. We know exactly what is going to happen to the animals when they are used as a food source. Testing could leave the animals in a slow painful death, or cause them to suffer, while the food industries attempt to make it a quick process so the animals are not in any pain. This potential of suffering affects people’s morals more than the imminent death of an animal who is born for food.
I believe that animal research is viewed negatively because many organizations believe that animals are treated inhumanely in experiments. Possibly, it is because the animals are subjected to certain chemicals, drugs, and diseases for extended periods. In contrast, animals used for food are sometimes killed instantly for the food industry. However, many documentaries showcase the terrible treatment and conditions of many farms and factories where animals are kept and slaughtered for food. I agree that there is a double standard regarding using animals for research versus food, but I think there should be a limit to how long animals should be subjected to inhumane conditions.
When it come to this topic, its is my opinion that the reason people look down on animal testing is because animal testing has not been around for that long. People have had negative things to say about the meat industry, with PETA serving as a strong force in this regards. This is an ongoing issue but the food industry and the fact that people eat meat has been going on since the beginning of time, to the point that yes people are still against he meat industry, its just such a long ongoing issue, that the issue itself is not talked about that much anymore. Animal testing is a bit newer and has gotten alot of public attention as if recent, but like the food industry it is serving an important function. At the end of the day, the only compromise to this topic is that animals need to be treated in a humane matter. There numerous sources and information on the horrors of the meat industry and the same is seen in animal testing. Despite negative views we can all agree that there needs to at least be some reform to allow more humane conditions for these animals.
I love this question. I see a-lot of people who eat meat 3 meals a day that complain about animals being tested on. Its very interesting that people can pick and choose what to be mad about when they are doing the same thing. I havent eaten meat in 12 years because I dont need it to survive. But I believe that some animal testing is ok if it is for the bettering of man kind. Its a touchy subject and it can get heated quick. Its actually around 70 billion animals killed each year for food(Faun). Thats 10 times the earths population of humans per year. That number is atrocious and is a number we need to focus more on than the small number of animals being tested on.
Global Animal Slaughter Statistics And Charts - Faunalytics
Q: "Why might animal research be looked at in such a negative light while many more animals annually are being killed for food?"
A: I do agree that there is a line between what is ethical when it comes to animal research but I think that animal research is looked at in such a negative light due to the implications that the research and testing is "killing animals" rather than finding understandings for methods that could potentially not only save animals, but humans as well. Growing up, I was always under the implication that when animal testing was done on television shows or even movies would convey scientific research done on animals as gruesome and inhumane and morally disturbing, when in most cases it is not. Comparing it to animals being killed for food, I think that culturally and realistically, we are accustomed to seeing that notion or concept as not as inhumane or detrimental because we find that we directly benefit. So to speak, we as humans are desensitized to the concept of killing animals for food.
I think this phenomenon results from people believing the animal was tortured before being sacrificed. In fact, researchers won't give too much pain in the animal models. The additional pain would affect the experiment result. Another reason people feel negative about animal experiments is the advantage of the internet. People can now find animal test videos on the internet and feel sad for animals in videos. Back 20 years ago, few people knew about animal tests, and the meat on the supermarket shelf was hard for them to feel sorry about.
This is a very good topic. There are people that believe that the use of animals should be abolished completely, while others believe animals are an important aspect to how humans survive by consumption or medical testing. Using animals for consumption and for laboratory purposes can both be detrimental to animals. I feel like depending on the research using animals can sometimes be torcher by continuously using the same animal for the same research multiple times. In comparison to consuming the animal, the animal does not have to continuously suffer. I also feel that the same community of people that believe animals should not be used as a food source, believe that they should not be used for laboratory purposes either.
I understand why animals are used for testing, but that doesn’t negate the fact that animals feel pain just as humans do. In some cases, animal testing does not seem necessary, especially in the instance that there are other ways to test product toxicity. As I mentioned before, I understand animals are used for testing life-saving treatments and sometimes there is no other alternative, but I just can’t imagine the pain and suffering an animal must go through in some tests. Just as it is not necessary to eat animal meat, but people do so. There are instances where animals are force-fed, left in deplorable conditions then butchered for someone to eat. I feel like there are alternatives to that as well. However, I do realize people have severe reactions to other food so eating meat is the only option. My choice would be in the condition that the animal has the least suffering as possible. I feel like animal testing is prolonged and that could go on for years.
Tens of millions of animals are used in laboratory experiments every year in the United States. Those without protection are complex beings who think and feel pain, just the same as those who have legal protections. Animals are used across fields, in many types of research: biomedical, aeronautic, automotive, military, agricultural, behavioral, and cognitive research, and in consumer product testing. The Animal Legal Defense Fund calls on government agencies to be more transparent in their treatment of animals used in research.
Nonhuman animal experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice
I've often pondered this ethical dilemma regarding animal research versus the consumption of animals for food. It's a complex issue, and I believe there are a few key factors that contribute to the differing perceptions of these two practices.
First and foremost, the distinction lies in the perceived purpose. Many people view the consumption of animals for food as a fundamental human need. We need sustenance to survive, and animal agriculture has historically provided a major source of nutrition. This basic necessity can overshadow ethical concerns for some individuals.
On the other hand, animal research is often seen as a choice, a deliberate use of animals for scientific advancement. This choice is subject to more scrutiny because it doesn't directly fulfill a basic human need like sustenance does. The ethical debate intensifies when it involves more sentient and intelligent animals, such as dogs, cats, or nonhuman primates, which are commonly used in research. Some argue that it's morally troubling to subject these creatures to experiments that may cause suffering when there might be alternatives.
It's also important to consider visibility and awareness. The scale of animal use in food production is enormous, with billions of animals involved. However, much of this occurs out of sight in industrial farming operations, while animal research often takes place in more controlled and visible laboratory settings. This visibility can lead to heightened public awareness and scrutiny of animal research practices.
In summary, the ethical perceptions of animal research versus animal consumption for food are shaped by factors like perceived necessity, the use of more sentient animals in research, and the visibility of these practices. While both areas raise important ethical questions, the distinction lies in the perception of need and the choices involved.
This post has great points and I appreciate the statistics, I knew animals were consumed more than they're tested on but not to that great extent. I believe animal research can often be seen as negative based on one's perception. A lot of times the animals that are being tested on (rats, guinea pigs, mice and etc.) are seen as pets or "innocent" but people rarely view larger animals that we consume in that manner. I also agree with the point that was mentioned above by @ema25, animals for consumption do not have to endure a long process before death. With animal research there are studies that can last months before an animal is put down.
But I do believe there are misconceptions with how studies are ran. As a scientist in an in vivo lab, if there is an animal in distress there are removed from the study immediately. Although the study may continue no one wants to see any animal go through that kind of pain. I think if there were more information on the culture of animal research, people would be more understanding of the field. It is a huge part of medical device development but people fail to realize things we use in our everyday lives are also studied using animal research.
The animal industry does not have good light in either food or research. I feel as though the food industry has a bit of less negativity because animals go in, are euthanized, and do not do anything else. On the other hand, in the research industry, animals are inflicted pain through testing, and only if the pain is way too much, then they are euthanized under special circumstances. I think that the food industry is blunt and quick, while the research industry is lengthy and remorseless. As I said before though, the food industry does get scrutiny too with poor conditions in the final moments of these animals, but lab animals are not living in amazing quarters either.
