Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
No one relishes using animals for experimentation, but the medical community has long insisted that such research helps develop potentially life-saving drugs and treatments. Is this justification compelling enough to continue using animals for medical research?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Can Medical Research on Animals be Justified?
I'd rather see a rat die than a person
The first argument that PETA uses to argue against animal testing is that many of the drugs tested on animals and moved into human trials end up being harmful to humans. What they don't mention is how many drugs are tested on animals that don't move onto human trials because they're determined to be dangerous.
Here's an overly simplified example. Bleach certainly kills the AIDS virus. Test tube trials would show this is absolutely true. We clearly don't want to inject bleach into somebody to see if it kills them too. We test it on animals first because we'd rather see a dozen dead rats than a dozen dead people.
Computer models and lab tests can certainly help eliminate many dangerous chemicals but in the end there are many that seem fine in the computer but just don't work. I'd rather see a rat die than a person.
- State of Reason
August 6, 2008 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On "rathers"
Your personal preference may be as justifiable as animal testing. While we all have personal attachments and preferences, it does not lead us to a moral or even a logically consistent argument.
I would rather see a rat be tested with chemicals than my daughter undergo such experiments. But, then, I'd also rather see *your* daughter tested upon than my daughter. See? I can find both options horrible and morally reprehensible, but my personal feelings and attachments would still allow me to make a judgment.
So the question isn't whether or not you have a feeling about who should be spared or given preferential treatment. The question is whether there is a morally consistent justification for animal research. This argument, therefore, will follow the same existential path that the Should We Eat Meat discussion followed.
What should easily be agreed upon, however, is that the majority of clinical research involving the torture of animals is redundant and unnecessary. The reason we cannot arrive there, however, is because of the effort and interest invested in making sure this concept never comes to the public's attention. Remember: most animal testing is not based on ground-breaking, live-saving discoveries. However, we do know, more or less, just how much window cleaner a beagle puppy can swallow before it loses consciousness. We also have a fairly good idea what the impact of high levels of ingested shampoo will have on the unborn children of a mother rat.
- mike
January 30, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.