Media Inquiries Ethics Concerns about cloning animals for food go beyond questions of food safety. In addition to concern for animal welfare, many people have ethical and moral qualms about animal cloning.
Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured.
Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of research.
On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved.
They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed.Dec 09, · Animals aren't humans. In fact, in regard to testing it's been proven that testing on animals is extremely inaccurate.
If you test a new brand of, say, foundation on a cat to see what the reaction is if consumed, the reaction that comes from the cat is going to be completely different to what a human reaction would attheheels.com: Resolved.
Mar 11, · The ban, which will take effect immediately, “gives an important signal on the value that Europe attaches to animal welfare,” Tonio Borg, the E.U.
commissioner for health and consumer policy. Unreliable animal testing 90% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests – whether on safety grounds or because they do not work Cancer drugs have the lowest success rate (only 5% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by psychiatry drugs (6% success rate), heart drugs (7% success rate) and neurology drugs (8% success rate).
Animal testing should not be banned! By testing on animals we have been able to save billions of lives and develop thousands of vaccines that have saves children's lives. Say a train was going down a track, and you only had time to say one or the other.
There was a dog strapped down, and a BABY.
Shame on you if you wouldn't pick the baby. Animal testing is a multi-billion dollar industry which is mostly public funding with help from the U.S. government, university laboratories, cage and food manufacturers, and animal breeders.
The industry and the people profit because animals, which cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited. Those not moved by the moral argument that it is simply wrong to experiment on animals, should be moved by the fact that vivisection is pseudo-science and the results can never be trusted definitively.