I would've hoped that in this day and age animal testing could be rid of within STEM, but since there are ethical reasons regarding why it's still deemed necessary, I will say that large strides have been made to make the testing more ethical and safe for the animals. The potential to eliminate testing on living, sentient beings is there, and I think as science progresses, we will see those strides made, especially as cloning and robotics continue to develop.

Animal testing is good practice since a very high standard protocol and ethics are followed to ensure no killing of animals is practiced in the name of the experiment. It is impossible to develop software that can mimic the human body, and technologies like a lab on chip are mature enough to show credible results. It leaves us no option but to test the drug on humans or animals, so it becomes apparent why animals are chosen for the test. Another point we miss here is that animal studies are carried o certain lab rats, which are bred for research, not on any rats. Again if it becomes a question of morally right research, what better lives of thousands of cancer, HIV, TBI, and stroke patients for a handful of lab rats?

Animal testing is important as they ( for example- rat, mouse)  are close to human physiology. But for ethical concern, there are 3Rs that should be maintained- Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replacement is to find alternative models to test; it can be full or partial replacement. Full replacement can be done by using in vitro cell lines or computer models, whereas partial replacement can be done using in vitro organoid models. Reduction means minimizing the number of animals used in an experiment without compromising significant outcomes. Refinement aims to minimize the suffering of animals by finding ways to ensure the well-being of the animals. In recent times researchers have been looking into different organ on chip models and bioprinted models where they are using human cells to get even more relevant results which can be great alternatives to animal models.

There is currently no substitute for animal experimentation in research. There are animal models that are accessible and being developed, but from a biochemical perspective, this is a mystery in and of itself. If a firm produces a medicine or biomaterial, it is virtually impossible to determine how it would respond in the body until they are tested on an animal. Animal models have not yet been developed to identify these factors. However, while scientists must and should avoid using animals in their research as much as possible, an outright ban would be extremely risky.

This is an excellent discussion topic and it was very interesting seeing the mixed opinions of others on the forum. I believe that ofcourse more people than not are animal lovers and understand where organizations like PETA form their ideals from. I believe that there is a middle ground that can possible be established on an issue like this. While some testing that assists with life saving technology for humans may be vital, there is still cruelty that goes on with animal testing, such as the recent story of thousands of beagles that were being held for testing of substances like tobacco smoke forcefully. This is where the line should be drawn because substances like this do not assist/enhance human life and quite literally do the opposite. This is a subject where I believe that substances or devices that are deemed life saving do need to have testing done on animal subjects, but substances that humans may be use for other uses should be tested on animals because I believe that is immorally wrong and cruel. It is a little bit on both sides of the argument but I would like to hear the opinions of others on this idea of a middle ground. 

In my opinion, for proper scientific advancement, in vitro AND in vivo testing is necessary, especially within biomedical engineering. In order for a studied to be verified and be labeled as “successful”, it needs to be viable in real life settings. In terms of biomedical studies, the only way to do that is with live organisms, with the only two options being human or animal testing. In todays society, there are a lot of moral and ethical constraints that prevent human testing to be utilized. Our only current option is animal testing, which had a lot less regulations. Hopefully in the future, other alternatives can be created maybe through the use of virtual models or 3D printing?

It is not rational for researchers to test new treatments in humans before they have been tested and researched in lab animals. How disease works, and how the newly invented drug or device will function is understood by the researchers by studying lab animals. Nowadays, computer-simulated testing is also getting popularity due to the intention of minimizing animal testing. However, it has its own limitations, and all of the preclinical tests can’t be done with simulations. However, animal testing is debated and it is tried to be avoided or minimized as much as possible. Many are against animal testing because they argue that it is outdated, cruel to animals, dangerous, and unreliable. Many people support animal testing because they believe it is necessary for advancing science and the well-being of humans. Though scientists and researchers still have to do preclinical research before going to human trials, they try to minimize the amount of animals being used in the research.

Animal testing in my opinion is ethical depending on the animal that is the subject. For example, it is unethical to perform experiments on dogs and cats as they can be emotional support and service animals to humans who suffer from mental illnesses. Rats and mice have been used as test models in research for over 150 years, but do we considering testing on rats and mice unethical? What other purpose do mice and rats serve for the environment and/or humanity besides being being used for research testing?

I do believe that as long as the animals who are subjected to testing are treated in a humane matter, then it is ethical. Animal testing is very important for gathering data during pre-clinical phases of a device or technology. Without animal testing we would not be able to get a full understanding of a new drug or device and its potential effects on people. We need animals like rats and pigs, who has similar visceral and brain physiology, to give us vital information on the efficacy of a drug. So it is in a way a necessary evil the same way that we have slaughterhouses to distribute meat to ultimately feed people. As long as they are being treated and/or euthanized in humane matter it is ethical because they are serving a purpose to help people, otherwise we would test on people which is then very unethical. 

Animal testing has long been a contentious topic, with advocates touting its necessity in advancing medical research and ensuring product safety, while critics decry the practice as unethical and cruel. The practice involves using animals to test the effects of drugs, chemicals, and other substances on living organisms. Proponents argue that animal testing is vital to understanding how new drugs and treatments may affect human physiology, pointing to its role in numerous medical breakthroughs and life-saving treatments. Critics, however, assert that animal testing violates animals' fundamental rights and can be unreliable, as animals may not respond to treatments and drugs in the same way humans do. Alternative methods such as computer modeling and in vitro testing have emerged in recent years, which many see as a more ethical option. Ultimately, it is up to society to weigh the benefits of animal testing against its ethical concerns and make informed decisions about its use in scientific research.

I believe that the animal model still is necessary for medical device development. We're indeed harvesting other lives for our own purpose. But completely stopping the animal test would cause disaster for the medical industry. An extreme example is that nobody wants to be the first to take the new drug test. It will delay the developing period of new drugs longer than before. Some researchers are developing a new technology called the lab on a chip to achieve a similar result as animal tests. However, these technologies are still seen as a complemented source for animal testing for now.

Animal testing plays a crucial role in scientific research, but it's imperative to address the ethical concerns surrounding its extensive use. Instead, we should view animal testing as a final resort, opting for alternative methods such as simulation programs and other ethical methodologies that don't involve unnecessary harm to living beings. Furthermore, we should explore innovative approaches, such as extracting and modifying patients' blood properties, similar to CAR-T therapy, in order to minimize the ethical concerns associated with traditional animal testing practices.

Hello,

The ethical debate surrounding animal testing in pre-clinical medical research is a complex issue. On one hand, pre-clinical research involving animals has played a crucial role in advancing our understanding of diseases, developing medications, and ensuring the safety of medical devices before they are tested on humans. These studies have undoubtedly contributed to medical progress and have saved countless human lives. However, on the other hand, animal testing is ethically problematic due to the potential suffering and harm inflicted on animals in the process. The ethical concerns around animal testing revolve around issues of animal welfare and the moral status of animals. Many argue that it is unethical to subject sentient beings to pain, suffering, or death for the sake of scientific research, especially when alternative methods may be available. These concerns have led to calls for the development and adoption of alternative testing methods, such as in vitro testing, computer modeling, and tissue engineering, which can reduce or replace the need for animal experimentation.

Although I wish there were ways to test medicines, devices, and etc without the use of animals, I do not find it unethical. In order to ensure these substances/devices are safe to the public there has to be some sort of conducted research. It's also interesting that people bring lots of attention to animal testing but never question clinical trials conducted on humans before a product is released to the public. Both forms of research have pros and cons but until a new method arises.. I say stick to what works.

Testing on animals is a very contentious topic...while it would feel morally better to stand on the side of being against animal testing, I can't take that stance. As many others have mentioned, I do believe there can be a necessity for it. 

With that being said, I feel what decides the need for animal testing should be much, much more controlled. There are standards for animal testing, for how you treat them, etc. But I feel some of the studies that are performed on animals can and should be eliminated entirely. For example, cosmetics can be strictly controlled where trials would only be allowed on humans, as in comparison to pharmaceuticals for example, the results from a negative reaction are much more dire. While there are several controls already in place for animal use, I believe that this control can be further constrained to only what is absolutely necessary.

While, yes, there are incentives available for humans volunteering for such studies, these are often small. These incentives should be expanded upon and encouraged. Programs for human involvement in these types of studies can be further developed and fleshed out. The issue with using animals is that they're often quickly turned to as an option; they can't stand and fight their treatment. Thus as humans, its always been easier to turn to using them rather than expanding upon human programs and integration in to these studies. I believe that solely using animals without tighter control and without working on further integrating/working on offering incentives for people voluntarily becoming involved in these studies is a folly of animal testing.

While necessary in many instances, animal studies can be much more constrained. After studies, animals can also be made comfortable and allowed to live humanely. This is done in some instances, but in others the animals are often put down after studies. Depending on those specific studies, I believe that some of those animals (in the cases where they could live humanely afterward) should be given more of an opportunity to live on and not be used simply as an instrument for science. In total, there should be more control to animal testing than there is.