Many may think animal testing is unethical in many way however have you thought of the benefits that it has to offer.Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans.All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system.Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.Therefore due to the similarity's that we share I believe it is ethical and the progression we have made in the medical industry speaks volumes.Being in the middle of a pandemic animal help with the production of vaccine so they are very much essential.How do you think could help with Cancer research if animal testing is unethical?

For as long as I can remember when it comes to testing new medicines and other treatments that could potentially save humans it has been tested on animals. I do not believe it is unethical to test on animals. The reason I believe this is because animals have similar qualities as humans. If we test everything on humans, this could be unsafe and potentially cause adverse effects. While this could also be the case for animals, we must ensure products being produce are safe for humans to use and testing of animals would be the best option. With advance technology in the future there may be an option to lower the use of animals for testing or not use animals at all.

I completely agree with one particular response to this post which states "animal models are critical to the advancement of science". Without animal testing, the world would not be able to see and understand the plethora of medications, treatments, and cures made available to the public since the beginning of scientific research. I believe animal testing is only unethical if the research being conducted allows it. Essentially every researcher within the animal sector is fully aware of the dangers that come with animal testing. It is ultimately the research coordinator's responsibility to facilitate research that involves more experimental benefit than animal suffering. Personally, I work with animals in my field of work and make sure that ethical testing will be performed in any research assigned to me.   Not all animals that are tested on will "die for science" and the majority of them are released back into their natural habitats. I believe a bigger question to raise is how can research facilities reduce the risk of unethical research that is not in compliance with the responsible use of laboratory animals?

There are many aspects of animal behavior and psychology that are similar to those of human behavior, most notably the traits of pain, fear, and suffering that they share. Prior to participating in any form of research, humans are required to provide informed consent. Human subjects are generally required to sign a form stating their agreement to the experiment's terms and conditions. However, there is no system in place for obtaining informed consent from animals before potentially life-threatening experiments. Today, there are several alternatives to animal testing. Researchers are now using in vitro testing (data collected from human cells or tissue in a petri dish) to reduce or replace animal testing. As a result of 3D printing technology, tissue bioprinting is now possible. As an alternative to testing chemicals on animal skin, artificial skin can be manufactured from human skin cells grown in plastic wells or test tubes, such as the commercially available EpiDerm and ThinCert.

There has been a long history of animal studies. The ability to produce data that will help treat human disease is one of the main justifications for using animals in research. There are other ways to generate data, and I think it is unethical. First, approaches other than animal tests should be used, such as mathematical modeling or an in vitro biological system. The number of animals used must be decreased. Only the number necessary to collect accurate results in an experiment should be used. To avoid repeating trials, a thorough literature search could be conducted beforehand. Also, the research needs to be improved to lessen its overall effect on the animals employed. A neighborhood animal care committee should also exist to ensure the animals are kept in suitable settings. The committee should also decide whether using animals is necessary to test the listed hypotheses. If so, the animal care committee should choose the proper sample sizes and experimentation techniques. Hopefully, in the future, we can figure out a way to make this happen in an efficient and scalable way.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't use animals for clinical research or have them in zoos; however, we don't live in a perfect world. I do understand the concerns from many people about the use of certain animals in our clinical research studies, but they are needed for a good cause for the advancement of humanity and discovering ways to fight off infections and diseases. We been using animals for other important means for survival such as food and clothing. The way we handle animals should be the main focus. I firmly believe in great ethics in how we treat our animals during clinical trials. Those who practice cruel and barbaric treatment towards defenseless animals need to face financial consequences.  

The debate on whether testing on animals is unethical or not has been going on for decades. Animal experimentation has proven to be beneficial to humans in that doing so can lead to finding cures for diseases and showing how drugs interact with the body as some animals are physiologically similar to humans.  While alternative methods like computer simulations and theoretical simulations are possible, it is more significant to use animals in research.  However, animals should receive proper care while being used for research purposes.  They should have adequate living conditions and receive a substantial food supply.  

This is a great debate that will continue forward until better alternatives have been validated and given approval. In the meantime, I believe animal testing is currently the best option and provides the results most expected when comparing to a human model. I've read a few papers discussing 'organ on a chip' technology and more computer simulations to reflect what could happen, but I'm not sure I could be to trusting of that method. In vivo experiments are needed so that real-time analysis and changes can be made depending on the experimental model. Until that integration can be made into computer-mediated simulations and other computer-generated models, animal testing is the best option we have at the moment. As time progresses, technology will also make provide new frontiers to expand scientific possibilities.

Should humans be performing nonhuman animal experimentation on the basis of animals providing adequate models of human biology and diseases? I see where PETA is coming from. That is, we are essentially using an animal model to better human health at their expense. We are also simultaneously justifying the practice through presenting evidence from these experiments. The evidence I mentioned is of human beings lives that we're saving. Again, at the expense of the animals we choose to experiment on for our betterment. However, that being said, is there a proven more effective alternative? As unthinkable, and as questionable nonhuman experimentation is, it affords us an avenue to improve human health through the creation of effective therapeutics, using animal physiology and behavior as models for human inventions and architecture, etc. We learn through trial and error, through observation, and experimentation at varying levels of complexity, through taking things a part and trying to understand the finer details. While I do not like nonhuman animal experimentation, it has proven to be a valuable tool.  There are cons of course; Misleading animal studies that lead to harm in humans, abandonment of therapeutics for this reason, financial concerns, ethical concerns, etc. Furthermore, this method of testing trumps the alternative; human-based testing methods. 

This is a hard question to answer. I feel personally that it's not really fair for some animals to be forced to give up their lives for the sake of advancements in science. But on the other hand, I do think it is necessary. We haven't got to a point in research where we are able to accurately predict the outcomes of new medications on people without testing on live organisms yet. If we could do that, then we wouldn't need to test on animals at all. Also, when we look at the medical testing history, these animals are being treated far more fairly than black humans used to be. It is required by law that any testing done on these animals follows ethical protocols. These animals are not allowed to suffer much pain for fear of the project being shut down. Black Americans suffered so badly that those wounds have been passed down through the generations. There are still a good number of doctors that still believe that black Americans do not feel pain the same as white Americans. I say all this to say that I do feel that animal testing has reached a point that it is ethical to do so. If a laboratory is not treating their animals well then, they deserve to have their project shut down. 

In research testing some of the things that animals are sued for can be very unethical. I feel using animals for testing on things such as makeup or cosmetics products is very unethical especially when the animals can risk major suffering from the products not being safe. Research in regard to medicine especially when starting with smaller animals such as rats is not as unethical to me. Certain research is far more important and if you are using animals that are not as under populated then it seems more worth the risk.

Regardless of the reason for or value of animal testing, some people feel that it is needless and inhumane. Scientists accept restrictions on the use of animals in research because they don't want to utilize them or give them excessive misery if it can be prevented. More broadly, the bioscience community agrees that only ethically justified animal research should be conducted. Since the 1960s, attempts have been made to substitute animal testing. Simply said, many animal experiments are too expensive, take too long, and provide false results. Mutagenicity tests and the Limulus pyrogen test are alternatives to animal testing. When carried out at an early stage of product scale-up, mutagenicity testing can prompt process chemists and engineers to make process adjustments in order to prevent the synthesis and/or separation of a product with a strong potential for genotoxicity. A variety of samples can be used for the limulus test to identify bacterial endotoxins.

It is the opinion of the writer that performing research on animals has the potential to be viewed as ethical depending on the overall goal of the research study. If the study is testing a new technique that is not believed to cause any harm to the animal that is being tested, the idea of research on animals in this case is not so severe. If the research that is being observed has the potential to result in death or serious health conditions as a result of conducting the research study, the writer could then testify that this approach may be unethical. Many researchers could also argue that conducting a research study among animals or humans both have the potential to be identified as unethical considering that research involving either animals or humans both have the potential to result in death or a serious illness as a result of participating in the research study or if something goes wrong throughout the course of the research study.

It is the opinion of the writer that performing research on animals has the potential to be viewed as ethical depending on the overall goal of the research study. If the study is testing a new technique that is not believed to cause any harm to the animal that is being tested, the idea of research on animals in this case is not so severe. If the research that is being observed has the potential to result in death or serious health conditions as a result of conducting the research study, the writer could then testify that this approach may be unethical. Many researchers could also argue that conducting a research study among animals or humans both have the potential to be identified as unethical considering that research involving either animals or humans both have the potential to result in death or a serious illness as a result of participating in the research study or if something goes wrong throughout the course of the research study.

This is a tricky post. I definitely never want any living thing to be harmed or killed. Graduating from Tuskegee University, where humans, people, Black men specifically were experimented on, reminds me of ethics and the importance of being ethical specifically to humans. In the case of animals, my heart feels sympathy for their lives that are lost, however, many animals have similar cells and bodily organs as humans, which makes testing/experimenting on them (animals) ideal for research. Alternatives could be utilizing animals from over popularized populations and regions.