source
From the knowledge that I have gained from attending my science classes and from reading, most laboratory experiments that eventually yield positive or negative results begin with cultures in petri dishes. After it may have been studied and to test for it's efficacy and effects, a small is put into a specimen/lab rat(which could be any animal that bears biological semblance to the human). This specimen is then monitored for effects, and if found to react just as expected in its body, the research element or drug can then be used on humans.
The use of animals for the reserch is dependent on: how crucial the research is, whether or not there is a practical alternative and how beneficial the research can be for us compared to how harmful it can be to animals.
There is also a reason I would consider how beneficial the research can be compared to how harmful it can be to animals. For instance, if the research would likely result in finding a cure to cancers that were previously incurable, then while your research may result in the death of a few animals, it could also lead to millions of others being saved, so it is a net positive.
Of course, ethics is not always black or white. It is up to the researchers to weigh the positives.
If there's an alternative that's as predictive of human results, that should be preferred. If testing on animals (whether a drug, cosmetic, or surgical procedure or something else) is the only way to ensure reasonable safety before initial human trials, well, at least as things stand, animals of non-endangered species are less critical on the scale of life than humans.
Usually, such testing or research should be done in such a way as to minimize pain and distress; and if possible and safe, the animal should be rehabilitated afterward; else euthanized painlessly.
The testing testing or research should be ultimately directed at saving or improving lives, with a reasonable chance of success. To cause suffering or other harm even to animals for anything less is gross and distasteful.
...........................................................................
You may not realize this, but I'm sitting on the fence here. And that's because I'm not very pleased with testing on animals.
I'm not saying that animals must not be used for medical research, cause while i adore all animals, i also recognise that the modern world -modern medicine to be precise- has been created through multiple forms of research, one of which, sadly, but more than likely, is to put through trial and test products on the living before said products are released for human use.
However, it doesn't nake those animals any less because without them, we wouldn't have many of the products we know and trust today.
While experimentation for the sake of experimenting is morally wrong, experimentation for the sake of science needs to be controlled and regulated, but in my opinion, it is morally acceptable
We all know that if there were other options besides animals, we can all agree that we would take it. However, there's not, as far as I'm aware of.
Animal testing has been crucial to the development of various vaccines and to the discovery of treatments for illnesses, not only for humans but also for animals.
It's quite contradictory to say that using animaals for experiments is cruel when we're alive precisely because of that.
Is it bad that for that to be achieved, there are animals that suffer and die? Yes, it is.
But, is it necessary as much as for us human beings as for the animals ? Yes, it is.
We live in a world that is not particularly fair, but we're trying to make the best of it. And sometimes the best we can do is not enough, but until we find another way, the greater good prevails.
I hope that this was interesting to read. Thanks for coming around.
