Experiments on animals for human purposes.
April 12, 2009 9:52pm CST
Supporters of the practice argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way. Opponents question the necessity of it, saying that it's cruel, it's poor scientific practice, since it cannot reliably predict effects in humans, and that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation. What do you think?
1 person likes this
13 Apr 09
I think that people shouldnt experiment on animals, they are living things just like us humans. If the product that theyre experimenting has something wrong the animal suffers and can die and that is murder. If we arent allowed to kill each other why should we have the right to kill the animals that do us no harm.
• United States
13 Apr 09
I'm totally opposed to animal experimentation for human purposes. What many don't realize is that there have been alternative means of testing, whether medications or products for over twenty years. My feeling is that animal experimentation only continues due to the idea that companies conducting the experiments get more government grants by using animals than by using the cheaper alternative means that wouldn't harm animals. Also, how can anything be tested safely on animals for human needs when the physiological/biological factors are so different between animals and humans? I've seen horrible pictures and videos of animals who are experimented on...such as one photo where a beagle puppy was burned alive to "test" and see the effects of burns. Don't we kind of know that already?