In some cases it is necessary, but I do not like to see it. It is like with abortion. In Brazil if one woman is raped she has the right to commit an abortion. I understand how hard would it be to give birth to the such a son, but I prefer not to see or advice the woman to do it or not.

Vilemar Magalhães

I might phrase the question somewhat differently, to see if it makes a difference. I imagine some people will think it does make a difference.

Given that experimentation is required, to find effective new therapies to treat diseases in humans, is it less morally objectionable to experiment on humans, or to experiment on animals? Point being, experimentation is needed, at some point. I don't think there's any doubt on that score? The question then is, what ought to be the subjects of these experiments?

Let's say we create a new drug, say for dementia, and have to determine whether it's effective and what the side effects are. Is it less morally objectionable to administer the drug to people with that condition, and determine the side effects on these human subjects, than to test the drug on animals? Some will says yes, it's less objectionable.

It's not fair to answer that no testing should be conducted. Assuming the problem doesn't exist is way too facile. So, attempting to answer a question with another question. Pardon.

Morally I don't think !!!

I don't understand why they do , may be to see the effect of chemical concoction and its backlashes !!!!

I think , chemistry is nature dictated well alchemists are to blamed !!

Hey Kirk, UNFAIR. I said the same thing as Cecilia, or at least, I opened that line of reasoning, experimenting on humans, but didn't get an upcheck. Big pout. :(

But more precisely to Cecilia's point. It would certainly go against the Hippocratic oath to deliberately infect healthy humans, to test out new drugs. That's irrespective of whether or not they volunteer. Which is why I postulated using people who are already afflicted with the disease, as the only viable alternative I can think of. (You do need to posit an alternative to testing on animals. You get points taken away if you dismiss the problem altogether. Not that you dismissed it, C.)

Mr Krik,

Never, once again its simply a cruelty !!!!

It is not morally right to use animals for experimentation; they all have life and they must enjoy the right to live.

We are slowly moving away from the use of animals for experimentation. responsible and ethical use of animals dictates that, before animals can be used, a proposal must be examined by an ethics committee which will determine if it is absolutely necessary to use animals. If it is necessary the committee will also examine if the numbers can be reduced or if lower animals can substitute more sentient higher animals

Controversial Issue, differ country to country

I think not because I love animals, but I suppose there are exceptions.

Regards!

Each year more than 115 million animals, including vertebrates alone, are tested with the purported aim of benefiting humans. This includes practices such as forcing them to inhale toxic gases, applying corrosive substances to their skin and eyes, infecting them with HIV, or removing part of their brains. Certainly, the number of non-human animals that suffer and die as a result of these practices is much lower than those that are victims of the food industry, or of wild individuals that suffer from natural events. However, since the basic interests of these animals in not suffering and not dying matter, it is nonetheless necessary to reflect on whether experimentation with them is ethically justified.

We often associate animal experimentation closely with efforts to increase the quality and duration of human life. However, as will be seen, this is not the aim pursued in most cases. Moreover, with regard to those in which it is, there are strong ethical reasons to reject the current practice of animal experimentation, if we consider that it would not be justified with human beings either.

There is no one answer to this question. Specific uses must be considered, since a scientific find that cures a horrible disease does not carry the same moral weight as things like testing makeup brands on animals. Further, the moral weights given to animal rights vs. scientific discovery differ by moral universe. In the ethics of more biocentric religions, such as Buddhism, one often finds moral dismay regarding the uses of animals in science, like one sees in the work of the current Dalai Lama. The rights of animals not to suffer outweigh considerations of human benefit. Within religious universes that tend more toward anthropocentric outlooks, such as with ethics stemming from the Abrahamic religions, harming animals in science for human benefit remains more tolerated and pursued. Of course, things are not neat and tidy regarding this, since one still may find a Buddhist who supports experimentation on animals and a Christian who does not. You might check out Tom Regan's classic work, , and the work that he, Jeff Masson, Lisa Kemmerer, and others have done since. You might also look into the essays found in .

Dear Sir,

I think sometimes could be allowed. Scientist always does any act to understand nature better and serve the humanity on a larger scale. Someone has to sacrifice. If you think any dynamic alternative, i will be happy to read

Jahangir

Good question and informative responses. Thanks!

In the field of medicine experiments are conducted on animals and after their success are tested on humans, especially in medical drugs and even in experiments in the field of education as in the experiments conducted by Pavlov and Koehler

I believe that it is necessary in some cases.

I also believe some time we don't have other options

Very sensitive issue. At the same complicated issue too.

First my question if people who say experimenting on animals is wrong, how eating non-vegetarian food mutton/chicken/pork/beef etc. is not morally wrong. People may say they are special breeds produced scientifically from cloned not from true fertilization etc. etc. form animals just for eating.

Same way for science also specific breeds are needed to experiment otherwise how science go ahead. I am facing the same problem my project is written to work on mouse. But I am facing the problem I should not work/handle with mouse in this country. I have to change animal model to earthworm. Seems no restrictions for that. I wonder that also an organism still no restrictions for that. Amazing!!!

Following.

Sorry if I'm intruding, Kirk, but are you currently reading/debating some writings by Peter Singer by any chance? I do have views on this, but will give it a pass besides replying YES - need to rush out as my dogs are demanding we go for a walk!!

There are few relevant publications

Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the 'inextricable connection'

D Fraser - 1995 - animal studies repository.org

http://animalstudiesrepository.org/acwp_awap/39/

In conceptualizing animal welfare, it is useful to distinguish among three types of concepts. 'Type l' are single, measurable attributes. 'Type 2' are single attributes that cannot be measured directly but can be estimated by correctly combining various contributing attributes. 'Type 3' are concepts involving multiple attributes which are grouped together because they serve some common function, and whose relative importance cannot be established in an entirely objective way. Individuals who treat animal welfare as a type 1 concept may propose single, objective measures of welfare, such as longevity or levels of stress-related hormones; however, this approach rests on judgements, which are not purely objective, about the relative importance of different factors for an animal’s quality of life. Studies of animal preferences and motivation are sometimes seen as an objective way to weight different attributes according to the animals' own priorities, and thus allow animal welfare to be treated as a type 2 concept. However, numerous technical and fundamental difficulties limit our ability to do this. Animal welfare is best seen as a type 3 concept incorporating multiple attributes, with considerable consensus over certain general principles (eg that a high level of welfare implies freedom from suffering) but with value-related disagreement over how these principles should be applied. Because the various attributes cannot be combined in a purely objective way, science is limited in its ability to determine the 'overall 'welfare of an animal and to compare welfare in disparate environments. Instead of attempting to measure' animal welfare, the role of science should be seen as identifying, rectifying and preventing welfare problems.

Animal experimentation: A philosopher's changing views

MA Fox - Between the Species, 1987 - digitalcommons.calpoly.edu

http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=bts

While fully aware of the complex issues involved-no. Emphatically no! We diminish ourselves through such actions.

Your question is a good one, which has drawn comments from both sides. While many valid arguments have been put forth here, this is probably a slippery slope question. Who makes the decision as to which situations morally justify the use of animals? Who speaks for the animals´ choice/decision to be experimented upon? It is interesting to think that in the Middle Ages, animals were assigned lawyers and given a "fair" trial to represent them in "crimes" they had committed against humans. https://www.globalanimal.org/2011/02/14/medieval-court-cases-animals-on-trial/

While it usually did not end in the animal´s favour, this may be one of the earliest examples of giving animals a "voice." Such a role is now filled by the many animal rights and welfare organizations.. As a sign of our moral development as a species, we should only experiment upon those who understand all of the ramifications and can give their consent.

Following

الحقيقة أنه شر لابد منه .صحيح أن ذلك مؤلم وينبغي أن لا يقوم الإنسان بذلك ولكن لمتطلبات العلم اظن انه مضطر للقيام بتلك التجارب على الحيوان

It is true that it is a necessary evil. It is true that it is painful and should not be done by man but for the requirements of science I think that he is forced to carry out these experiments on the animal