To decide if animal testing is ethical or not is tough decision because there a numerous of product that we used today were first tested on animal. But on the same time the number of animals that die is awful because they are being picked off one by one with them not giving consent. If another species that did that to us we will get angry because they are forcing us to take a test that is meant for us but for them. Animal testing began in B.C century and I think we should all ready figure out a better way in testing our product instead of using animals. I know there are other method in testing that occasionally work but it should be perfected because we can’t use animals for the rest of our lives, we need a better option.
What would you propose to be a better option than animal testing? There are certain simulation models that could be used for mechanical testing, but how do you suggest simulating how the brain works? That has yet to be achieved since the brain has not been able to be replicated. I do believe that animal testing has been highly regulated by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and because of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). These regulations have set up boundaries on animal experimentation and mandate for a small as can be sample size that is at least statistically relevant. The efforts on animal use are meant to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, as well as look for other, less harmful means of experimentation. Animals are used because part so of them are similar to humans and the findings can be correlated to human research. Rats are used because their brain is the most similar to the human brain, and therefore they can help us get closer to understanding the brain. I know that I would not feel comfortable using a product that was only tested on a computer model. Would you?
This is a very difficult topic because it is an opinionated debate between necessity versus ethics. And it appears from the majority of the feedback from our classmates, animal testing is bottom line unethical, but is necessary to an extent to continue the advancements in medical science. Testing on animals is cruel and essentially is the researcher taking control of the animal's purpose of life, where to give perspective, more than 115 million animals worldwide are used in experimentation in the biomedical industry. Yet the animal testing that has occurred in just the past decade has allowed for advancements in the medical industry that provides a better quality and longevity of life for not only humans, but animals as well.
Throughout history as regulations continue to get more stringent, researchers are becoming more conscious of limiting pre-clinical testing as needed, by either eliminating the need for whole-animal testing when it isn't necessary or reducing the sample size used for specific tests. I agree with BijinV's perspective that as technology advances in developing more sophisticated modeling softwares, renewable cell lines, and ex-vivo models, the frequency of animal testing will decrease, but will never fully be non-existent. Computer models cannot fully replace animal research due to their inability to understand the complex interactions between molecules, cells, organs, organisms, and the environment. There are too many parameters and even biochemical unknowns that cannot be predicted for in a computer model that could be seen in animal research. As smitshah mentioned, the biochemical prospective is still a mystery to us, varying between species and between each non-human and human animal. Animal experimentation provides insight on these interactions and is ultimately necessary in grasping the complexity of a computer model that would be required to ensure every parameter is accounted for in a research study.
Testing animals are the pathway for medical researchers and scientist to explore and test a medical device efficiency, a therapeutic drug effectiveness for a specific disease, or particular surgical techniques (ex. hip replacement, kidney transplant, heart transplant, etc.). As it is unethical and impossible to test these aspects on humans due to the high error possibilities which could lead to death in some cases, animals would be an ideal alternative for clinical testing due to the biological similarities between human and animals which make it a great model for research and would lead to a results that would work also on human organs. This includes similarities in diseases, physical and psychological emotions. Repeating tests, and injecting with different injections can only be done on animals as applying them to humans would be such a risk. This would be in most cases beneficial for human life and would offer a better and safer medical future. Thus, I don't think it is unethical, and researchers couldn't find a better alternative yet.
In one of the surgeries I attended for my research, our rat was depressed after the surgery for around two months under psychological treatment and then we lab members were able to get a better neural recording.
I understand where groups such as PETA believe testing animals for research is unethical since there are some cases where the animal may suffer. I do believe though it is more unethical to do research testing on humans first. As zha7 mentioned above, right now we do not have an alternative. In the near future, an alternative method may be using computer models.
I think animal testing should be limited to educational research that is geared towards improving human health such as for cures and treatments. I do not think animals should be used for testing for superficial reasons such a makeup. Another thing to consider is as we continue to produce advanced technology, people become more curious and want to research beyond what we need. If that is the case, allowing the researcher to use animals should be determined by the level of suffering the animal will experience.
In my opinion, animal testing is considered unethical. However, in certain circumstances, the use of animal in an experiment is necessary due to lack of technology to get results similar to experiments done on animals. As of right now, there are no alternatives but that does not give scientists or researchers to do animal testing more often. I think experiments on animals should be minimized. When experiment requires an use of an animal for the result that users should get an approval from the animal care community beforehand. Also making sure animals are not abused and no pain during an experiment.
I think most of us have a feeling toward animals used in the science experiment and think it is unethical. However, it is used to help the humanities, This experiments goal is to find medical treatment, medications, and implantation. Most of us think about the act as it is not ethical but if you tie it to the outcome of the experiment, I think it saves 1000 if not more of human lives. Most of us eat meat and we don't think about how many get killed to satisfy the market demands. If we compare it to the number of animals used for a clinical experiment. I think it will be way less and sacrifices for humanities. I think there are so many ways you can look at it which makes it hard to say is it ethical o not.
Animal testing is something that I personally abhor but the problem is that it's more unethical to test things on humans. If the animal species rapidly reproduces, then that's not as much of an ethical issue but I would like to avoid testing on animals that aren't prevalent tin the world. I guess you can say that a human life is worth more than an animal life so sacrificing an animal in order to save more human lives is necessary and a net positive. Science is not a black/white issue and although it's cruel to experiment on animals, it's necessary to benefit mankind.
Although I believe animal testing is clearly unethical, I do find the efficacy of their results extremely valuable. Animal testing has been the most accurate and reliable strategy for checking new drugs, with few limitations or side effects due to animals and humans. Alternative models, computer simulation, have emerged as a mean to both minimalize the use of animal and increase the accuracy of results. So far, the University of Oxford’s Department of Computer Science has been quite successful in demonstrating the advantage of computational models over animal testing in assessing the adversity effect of drugs used for heart defect such as arrhythmias. Animal testing had an accuracy rate of around (75% to 85%), while "virtual model performed better with a rate around (89-96%). This result implies that maybe someday computational models would be the standard model for laboratories investigation. However, that future remains pretty distinct, and even I don't believe animal testing would be complete eradicated.
As far as ethical standards of using animals all labs are supposed to follow strict guidelines to ensure the animals are respected. But at the end of the day subjecting living things capable of feeling pain and stress, to test and experiments that put their health at risk is not very ethical. But it can always be seen as a necessary evil due to all the good it does not only for humans but sometimes the species of animal itself.
With so many recent advancements in technology for simulations and computing, some people may argue that animal testing is unethical. However, when looking case-by-case at different applications of animal testing, it is clear that it is necessary. Even with a perfect simulation model, devices and medications need to be testing on real living things before they can be used on a human. When it comes down to it, the life of a human being is more valuable than the life of an animal. I'm not saying that the life of an animal is valueless, but that preserving human life is definitely the first goal; after all, that's usually the goal of a medical device. Nowadays simulations can be used to reduce the amount of animal testing, but it is likely we wont be at a place any time soon to be able to eradicate animal testing from medical device development.
Animal are used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of a new products. Many of these tests cause pain to the animals and reduce their quality of life, cause permanent damage or death. Some people think that animal testing is acceptable because animal are lower species than humans. In my opinion Experimenting on animals is unacceptable. However I disagree with that but we do not have another choice.
I believe animal testing is necessary for some of the trials, where it apparently becomes unavoidable without them. However it should be limited to few trials and must be done only when the particular trial can not proceed without animal testing, and should be monitored strictly. Living in a technology era we must find replacements for animals, but until then it is a cruel fact that they WILL BE used for our benefit. I hope with the advent of tissue engineering, robotics, etc., we would we able to replace them in the near future.
Although science has been around for a while, technology is something that has been evolving in the past 20 years. Pre-clinical is very important to every and any kind of medical research. But what is also important is ethics behind animal testing. Some organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are fighting for stopping animal testing. PETA and other organizations like this believe it is cruel to perform on animals and use them for science. Although they do help us have better medications and medical devices, they are dying for the name of science. Do you think this is unethical? Are there alternatives?
Testing will always be required to show that the design inputs and user needs of a device are being met. Unfortunately, there isn't a good alternative to the current practice for testing that's in place, i.e. animal testing. However, regulatory bodies such as the FDA will not let a new device be released on the market if they don't feel sufficient testing was performed. So, if the medical device industry wants to keep advancing and creating new devices and generating breakthrough solutions and technologies, there doesn't appear to be any alternatives to animal testing at the moment. I do believe though, that as long as the animals are being treated properly and their sole purpose for being experimented on is for the sake of medical advancements, then it is ethical to use them for testing. If it is not already the case, the test labs should be inspected/evaluated to ensure there are proper test conditions for the animals and that they are not unnecessarily being caused any harm.
Is animal testing ethical? are there any alternatives?
This question arises in the context of preclinical testing. What then is the purpose of preclinical testing?
It is testing that is done in an attempt to be ethical in human testing so as to minimize human injury during research. From this perspective the question of being ethical is already answered with a resounding yes. Because one should only consider the ethics of animal testing in relation to the objective of minimizing injury to human health. Otherwise the question arises is it ethical stop animal testing in favor of a reduction in research that could improve human life? Only in the case of a equivalent alternative to animal testing would ceasation of on animals testing not result in deleterious effects to humans.
However, from web searches there does appear to be several means of reducing animal testing while not eliminating them. Computer simulations, mri scanning and in vitro testing are few continuing to show promise. Still a strong indicator that animal testing is still required is its existence itself.
In industry the main motivation for research is to gainprofit. With such an aim it is likely that a company would rather save money than siphon away funds from profit for unneccary animal testing.
But companies still engae in it because there really is a complete alternative yet
