Like many of you, I hold my reservations to the type of animal used for testing. I also have a dog and would be indifferent to think about animal testing done on any dog, but the reality is that these studies are laid out very strategically and if there needs to be a need for it, then dogs may have to form part of a study. For example, in the study done to identify the inability of prions to infect certain mammals, "Deadly Conformations—Protein - Misfolding in Prion Disease" the research is done on dogs to identify their ability to resist infection. The conclusion is that they lack aspartic or glutamic acid at position 163 in their prion protein that results in a different folding pattern, therefore the resistance to the prion. Studies like this one allow us to better understand the science behind diseases and factors that affect human health, so I believe that it is necessary to do testing on animals. 

Horwich. A, Weissman, J. "Deadly Conformations—Protein Misfolding in Prion Disease" Cell Press. Cell, Vol 89. 499-510. 16 May, 1997. Accessed Online 20 September 2020

I believe the line should be drawn for certain animals. In this case I believe these animals include pets such as, dogs, birds, and cats. I do believe apes should be experimented on, because they are the animal that closely relates to us humans. Therefore the research being completed will correlate. I believe having pets help with mental and emotional health, and there is no reason we should be killing animals that could be great pet lovers for an amazing family!

This is a topic which crosses the boundaries between what is ethical and what is not. Several individuals will usually have a different take on the topic and the line drawn for testing varies between person to person. I believe most people do have at least some degree at which they draw the line and wish to exclude a certain animal from being tested or even a certain practice. In general, I believe the greatest concern is any sort of physical or phycological harm which may be done to the animal tested. The other aspect which I believe others tend to consider is the intelligence of the animal being tested both intellectual and emotional. Many animals tend to be quiet "limited", in a sense to the intelligence of a human's. Therefore, there are two tokens which people often consider, the value of the animal, and the level of harm which is being done. 

This is a very controversial topic, as there are ethics involved. I have participated in the this debate in one of mine engineering ethics classes and I going to state the same thing that I state there. I personally am a vegetarian since birth so when it comes to treating animals right have some sense and idea behind it. However from what I have seen in the industry and also in research when it comes down to advancement for medicine and scientific necessity I personally believe its okay to use animals such as dogs, cats etc, since to me all animals are equally and if they can be beneficially in advancing science. 

Unfortunately, the answer to this question must take Darwin's survival of the fittest approach. In a perfect world, no living organism would undergo scientific testing, but the world is not perfect. Scientific testing on animals provides solutions to problems humans face and helps extend our life span. Animals closer to our anatomy, when needed, are preferable to reach the best outcome.

I believe a tricky part of research is the removal of emotions. Science is fact-driven. Sometimes, the results of scientific inquiry elicit significant emotional responses. Some of those responses have immediate, practical ramifications. At times, the response is a reflection of existential concerns about the nature of our universe. Emotions are not the prime factor in discovery; they generate bias.

I am a pet owner. I would be devastated if tests were conducted on my dog. I get extremely sad even thinking about my dog dying. However, when faced with a decision to save my life or the life of my dog, then I will choose to save my life. Therefore, the line is drawn when it is no longer in the best interest of the greater good. 

What situation would you need to be placed in to choose your life over the life of an animal?

The use of animals for research, education, and testing is an ethical and political contentious topic. Most of the discourse around this problem focuses on humans and animals' relative moral worth, or moral value. When the needs of people and animals collide, which should take precedence? Throughout history, animals have been employed for anatomical and physiological study as well as the testing of novel treatments and harmful chemicals. Many medical advancements have been made such as polio, the covid-19 vaccination, and rabies vaccinations. Animals are essential for medical advancement. Animals allow for the large discoveries that have been made concerning illnesses and diseases which not only affect humans but the animal population as well. The covid-19 virus is suspected to have originated in animals within the European-Asian continent. Many animals within the research environment are treated ethically and with care. 

I am totally on the fence about animal testing. I am an animal lover and I see the benefits of animal testing and as you mentioned testing apes due to their close relation to humans. However, I often wonder what the alternative testing method would entail if animals were taken out of the equation. If scientists find it ethical to test on apes, would they then find it ethical to test on unwilling participants? I mean, the line should be drawn, there has to be some morality in place. Animals feel pain and suffering, and I understand there are medications, etc., utilized to diminish the pain, but does that make it ok? We could also diminish the pain of human participants, does that make it ok? I understand animal testing is used to reduce the suffering of humans, but at what point is enough, enough? There are ethics in place of animal testing, but if it is wrong to inflict pain on human beings, it is wrong to inflict pain on animals.

If animal testing is taken out of research, what would an adequate alternative be?

I think this is a very good question.  I have not eaten meat or worn animals in 12 years.  I don't believe eating animals is not a necessity and I think we as humans exploit and over kill for our desire to eat.  That being said I belive in humans continually try to benefit our species, solve problems and find cures, and I understand it is hard to do that if we don't test on animals.  I think  testing on animals for products like shampoos, makeup and similar products in ridiculous. We don't have tp do that for petty superficial dreams.  But finding the cure for cancer or ALS or Parkinsons, well that a different story.  Its a tad bit hypocritical but that how I feel.  It it is to better humans lives health wise, then I am a bit more accepting of testing on animals.