What are arguments for and against medical testing on animals?

Preface:

I'm going to try and impartially present both sides of this issue, as I know them. I'll confine myself to what I know to be facts, and avoid supposition. I shall also try to bring to the table every valid argument on both sides that comes to mind. I shall withold my own subjective opinions in this matter, and will not state where my own heart lies in this argument.

Note that this is an argument that is neither cut and dried, and has both objective and subjective components to it. I promise to treat each as fairly as I can, without the blessing or curse of my own opinion rearing its own ugly or delightful head.

If I seem split on this issue -- wel...

In favor of Animal Research:

The leading arguments favoring animal research as as such:

Certain compounds, be they food or pharmaceuticals, may have unforeseen effects that no amount of calculation or research is going to unearth. Thalidomide, in the 1960's, is a classic example. A sedative, Thalidomide made it through trials with no apparent problems. No-one, however, thought to test how this drug would work if used by woman who were pregnant. It turns out, the way it worked was that it produced amazingly grotesque, heartbreaking birth defects. The testing wasn't flawed. No-one had a clue this would happen. But clearly it did. Long term testing on primate subjects would have been grisly, but very well might have uncovered this defect before hundreds of human babies were born with horriffic and incapacitating defects, almost all quickly fatal.

The fact is, that when it comes to prepping a drug or vaccine or procedure for use on the human population, we either need to test it on animals with metabolic and eventually genetic similarities to humans, or we'll have to let it into production without testing. Or -- in effect -- the final phase tests won't be in the lab; they'll be on your neighbors.

To put this in perspective, what if it's your sibling who, on the happy day of the birth of their child, finds a creature that will never live a day without extreme pain, not a minute without the revultion of others, not a month in school, not a minute on a bicycle, and not a decade alive -- leaving behind a family financially and emotionally devasted (and statistically likely to even be divorced). But there are a few monkeys somewhere who wer left alone.

Opposed to Animal Testing:

Simply because animals are not human does not imply they don't feel pain, despair, torture, and horror, somewhat as we do. Inflicting torturous procedures on animlas in order to spare ourselves the pain seems morally reckless at best, and arrogant to the point of hubris at worst.

As we do not "own" these creatures, we have no inherent right to subject them against their will to what we ourselves call inhumane practices, any more than we have a right to torture animals for our amusement. The question may be posed: "What makes it morally acceptable for us to take another creature's freedom and life away from them, solely to maybe improve the qualitiy of our lives, but more likely suffer much as we ourselves would suffer, without discernable, beneficial results?"

And worse, up until recently, this testing wasn't solely reserved for matters of life and death, or even uman health; we tested with animals in order to discover the potential dangers of cosmetics (although this practice has almost stopped, and WILL stop in your lifetime). The story this tells about humans isn't even sufficiently dignified to say, "we sacrificed them that we may live", but rather, "They died in pain so that we may look good flirting.

A Final Note on Human Test Subjects.

Both sides of this argument eventually reach the point of discussing human subjects. The fact is this is an accepted albeit controverisal practice, and we do extensive human testing. The rules are:

• The human must of course be elegible for the test, physically and emotionally.
• The "pay" or reward for the test must be clearly stated before the test begins.
• The subject must be apprised that, in blind and double-blind tests, they may be given the drug, or they may be given the placebo -- even if they need the drug to survive.
• And -- they must be allowed to decide to do or not do this as a free choice, unencumbered by threat or benefit unrelated to the test.

You can't legally let prisonser get invovled in most medical testing because it's cruel and inhuman punishment, and violates the 4th Amendment. If one personally feels this to be unreasonable, consider lobbying to amend that amendment. But, as it stands today, those are the laws.

The fact is that no-one will submit willfully to medical testing unless they have something to gain. The more dangerous the potential outcome of the test, the more they'll need to gain, to the point that the tests have almost the blackmailer's taint about them. The very rich would have no reason to consider participating in such tests, and so this would be the realm of the disenfranchised and powerless to effectively say no.

Neither side in this argument has, after consideration, put forth the idea of total cessation of animal testing in favor of testing on humans.

• Girl names for kittens that are not common names?
• What is the french pronunciation for your small brown cat?
• Why doesnt your rabbit come to you?