The ethics of animal testing.

[Pappa]

When is it acceptable to test on animals?

Should all new products that come in contact with humans be tested on animals to screen for carcinogens, allergens, etc.?

Should animal testing only be used to test new drugs?

Should there be restrictions on the types of animals used in testing, even if this limits the usefulness of results?

If the criteria for choosing animals suitable for testing is based around sentience and the ability to feel pain or suffering, could animals be replaced with people in a permanent vegetative state, people who are brain dead but kept "alive" to be test subjects, or cloned humans genetically modified to never be conscious?

If animal testing is acceptable in some or all circumstances, what is the rationale for ranking a human's life/health/beauty above that of an animal?

[Rum]

Sometimes the most honest thing to say is I am uncertain. I am with this issue. The thought of any unnecessary suffering for animals turns my stomach, but then so does the thought of a child suffering and being killed by leukaemia for which a cure might be found by testing it on animals. At one time I would have said the cost was easily worth it. Now I am not so sure.

The anti-testers do say that the vast majority of testing can be done without the use of animals. I don't know if that is the case as I have not read the arguments in detail, however if that is the case then surely we should put as much effort as possible into developing those systems and testing regimes.

[Atheist-Lite]

If a biological system can be simulated to a great deal of accuracy on a computer I can't think why there is a need to stuff perfume in rabbbits eyes.

[HomerJay]

When is it acceptable to test on animals?

When animals want to stand for election.
Or get into college
Or apply for non-manual jobs.

[Atheist-Lite]

When is it acceptable to test on animals?

When animals want to stand for election.
Or get into college
Or apply for non-manual jobs.

When animals substantially contribute to global climate change like humans do, you mean?

[Tero]

Drugs should be tested on humans and after that the closest thing to humans, lawyers. Shampoo directly on blondes.

[PsychoSerenity]

Sometimes the most honest thing to say is I am uncertain. I am with this issue. The thought of any unnecessary suffering for animals turns my stomach, but then so does the thought of a child suffering and being killed by leukaemia for which a cure might be found by testing it on animals. At one time I would have said the cost was easily worth it. Now I am not so sure.

The anti-testers do say that the vast majority of testing can be done without the use of animals. I don't know if that is the case as I have not read the arguments in detail, however if that is the case then surely we should put as much effort as possible into developing those systems and testing regimes.

It's complicated, and I'm happy to leave the ethics up to those who are directly involved and have a better understating of the situation. What does concern me though is that the ethics may be swayed by financial profits.

[Animavore]

There's a thought experiment that goes something like this: If you had a choice to save a random human child or a dog, say from falling off a cliff, which would you choose?
Most people say human child.
What about ten dogs vs one human? Twenty ...etc? How many dogs does it take to be worth one human child?

Depending on how you answer this should give you a general idea of your view on animal testing.

My answer would be no amount of dogs is worth a child. If it came against every dog on the planet vs one child I would happily let the canines plummet into a ravine effectively wiping out the species and not even care about all the angry letters and death threats I recieve from dog lovers and terrorists like ALF. I would've saved a child.
Animal testing is fair game.

[Atheist-Lite]

There's a thought experiment that goes something like this: If you had a choice to save a random human child or a dog, say from falling off a cliff, which would you choose?
Most people say human child.
What about ten dogs vs one human? Twenty ...etc? How many dogs does it take to be worth one human child?

Depending on how you answer this should give you a general idea of your view on animal testing.

My answer would be no amount of dogs is worth a child. If it came against every dog on the planet vs one child I would happily let the canines plummet into a ravine effectively wiping out the species and not even care about all the angry letters and death threats I recieve from dog lovers and terrorists like ALF. I would've saved a child.
Animal testing is fair game.

That's a dog. What about a neanderthal, who had a higher cranial capacity than humans?

[Animavore]

There's a thought experiment that goes something like this: If you had a choice to save a random human child or a dog, say from falling off a cliff, which would you choose?
Most people say human child.
What about ten dogs vs one human? Twenty ...etc? How many dogs does it take to be worth one human child?

Depending on how you answer this should give you a general idea of your view on animal testing.

My answer would be no amount of dogs is worth a child. If it came against every dog on the planet vs one child I would happily let the canines plummet into a ravine effectively wiping out the species and not even care about all the angry letters and death threats I recieve from dog lovers and terrorists like ALF. I would've saved a child.
Animal testing is fair game.

That's a dog. What about a neanderthal, who had a higher cranial capacity than humans?

Fuck 'em

[Atheist-Lite]

There's a thought experiment that goes something like this: If you had a choice to save a random human child or a dog, say from falling off a cliff, which would you choose?
Most people say human child.
What about ten dogs vs one human? Twenty ...etc? How many dogs does it take to be worth one human child?

Depending on how you answer this should give you a general idea of your view on animal testing.

My answer would be no amount of dogs is worth a child. If it came against every dog on the planet vs one child I would happily let the canines plummet into a ravine effectively wiping out the species and not even care about all the angry letters and death threats I recieve from dog lovers and terrorists like ALF. I would've saved a child.
Animal testing is fair game.

That's a dog. What about a neanderthal, who had a higher cranial capacity than humans?

Fuck 'em

That's probably how it went.

[Animavore]

That's a dog. What about a neanderthal, who had a higher cranial capacity than humans?

Fuck 'em

That's probably how it went.

Creationists explained

[Atheist-Lite]

That's a dog. What about a neanderthal, who had a higher cranial capacity than humans?

Fuck 'em

That's probably how it went.

Creationists explained

Hybrids are usually smarter and although most likely sterile the hybrids of humans and neanderthals would have been astoundingly smart, enough to kick start early cvilization even? Creationists on the other hand breed dumb and must come from something closer to incest?

[Animavore]

That's a dog. What about a neanderthal, who had a higher cranial capacity than humans?

Fuck 'em

That's probably how it went.

Creationists explained

Hybrids are usually smarter and although most likely sterile the hybrids of humans and neanderthals would have been astoundingly smart, enough to kick start early cvilization even? Creationists on the other hand breed dumb and must come from something closer to incest?

Good point well made

[Ironclad]

I get the impression that anti-vivisectionists still believe we rub bleach into rabbits eyes, make chimps smoke Bensons & force beagles to eat Mars Bars until their teeth rot. For kicks.

I'd rather not die in agony from some germs, i'd rather trail some medicines on Mr Flopsy.