While I understand the moral issues behind animal studies, at the current moment our technology is not fit for doing only in-vitro work to get through pre-clinical studies. As someone who is working in biofabrication right now, it is the role of my current research to better bridge the gap between clinical and pre-clinical work when using less animal studies. The creation of new in-vitro models is definitely very important and without it, as unfortunate as it is, the need for these in-vivo studies will only continue to be.
This is a great question, and I think it has to do with the timeline of benefits, and how close the general public is to the use of the animal. In the case of food, almost all of the general public is taking part directly in the eating of the animal, so in my opinion they are more likely to rationalize the act in order to feel less guilt themselves. The benefits are also immediate, when someone eats an animal, their hunger goes away and they feel better then they did before eating(as long as the food was cooked long enough). In research, mostly the general public is not involved directly, and since they are not participating in the act it may be easier for them to denounce it as cruel and unnecessary without harming their own self image. The benefits are also less tangible and can sometimes take years or decades to appear, and may never actually materialize at all(which in itself is still a benefit, learning that something doesn't work can be a very valuable thing).
My thinking is pretty straight forward. Human are carnivores so we eat animals anyway. The fact that animals dies from human act not because of food source reason but rather to serve the purpose of enhancing human civilization should not be raised as a problem. I myself also feel pity for the animals that are traumatized by various ways in the lab then later killed by the researchers but I do not see a necessary to raise a problem about that because it is serving the same final purpose: maintaining human lives. We eat them to live, and we research on them also for the sake of curing diseases and disorders, which at the end of the day, is to live.
Hi mmd 55,
I appreciate you proposing this question as it did make me think and do a little research into why this is the case. As someone who comes from a family of vegetarians, I would like to believe that we do what we can to try and do our part in helping animals. However, I do see it to be necessary in trials for the advancement the human health as human testing would sacrifice many lives, and I would hope society values human life over other animals. People correlate testing on animals to them being cut open, tortured, or put in situations where they are put to the extremes. However, such extremities are necessary before scientists can begin implantation/testing on human subjects. I do believe that the media has a big role to play in this, but there are ethical standards in place to ensure that things do not get out of hand.
I actually did not realize that the statistics was that startingly about the use of animals in research, but I think that people are starting to realize more of what goes on the background and want to change the cruelties. A lot of cosmetic companies now are showing off that they do not used animal testing as their method, which is because people are becoming more health conscious as well as mindful of their usage and effect on the planet. I personally did not realize that animals were used as a way for testing certain products, but once I did, I became a lot mindful of what my usage entails because it is not necessarily that important. I agree that you cannot simply just give products to people that will most likely cause them harm, but I do not think it is fair to remove the right from animals simply because they cannot speak about not wanting to volunteer for testing. It creates a very strange gray area as humans want to ensure our safety when it comes to products, but it is so easy to choose animals as they cannot disagree. I do find it strange that people can still support eating animals, but then it becomes a problem when they are being used for testing. However, I think the problem probably only due to what animals are chosen to perform the testing, people keep dogs for example as pets, which a lot of people feel emotional attachment to. Therefore, it is hard to see other dogs suffering and that animal is not seen as something that is usually found in science, so it is easier to fight against it.
That's an intriguing point, and one that I've considered as well. One of the reasons why animal research receives more unfavorable attention than animal eating is due to its goal. Most people regard eating animals as a personal decision or a cultural norm, however animal research frequently feels less "optional" because the animals give no direct benefit to the individual consumer. Instead, they are employed in a controlled environment, where the suffering may appear more intentional, although the purpose is to develop medicine and save lives. There is also the issue of visibility—most people do not witness what occurs on farms or in slaughterhouses. Still, the thought of animals in cages or being experimented on is more visual, which may elicit a stronger reaction from the public. However, your data highlights a stark discrepancy that questions our understanding of animal ethics. Perhaps a better question is: if society is willing to use animals for sustenance, why should utilizing them to develop medicine, which has the potential to save human lives, be considered less acceptable?
