Amazon.com Widgets

Is animal testing an acceptable form of ensuring safe products for people?

  • Animal Testing Protects People

    Yes, it is not only acceptable to test consumer products on animals before they are used on people, it is very important to continue doing so. Many consumer products run risks of harm to sensitive populations or even to everyone who uses them, and it's important to know ahead of time what those risks are so dangerous products can be removed from the market.

  • Yes, but it depends on the product

    Medical supplies typically require animal testing, especially in the very early stages. Without this animal testing stage, it would put humans in quite a bit of danger and the risks are too great, so animals are necessary. For other products, such as cosmetic items, there is no need to test them on animals since they do not help improve the health and life of humans.

  • Yes, animal testing is a palatable way to test product safety before exposing people to them.

    Yes, animal testing is ethically acceptable for testing products. This sort of research has gone on for decades and has yielded many valuable conclusions that have led to successful treatment of many conditions in humans. While it might seem inhumane to some, if human quality of life can improve as a result of humane testing methods, then it is worthwhile.

  • If lawyers defend people, who defends the animals?

    1. Using animals for product testing, medical research and surgical skills training does not produce reliable results
    It has been claimed that the differences between animal species and human being are so great that product testing, medical research and surgical skills training done on animals does not adequately approximate how products, treatments or surgical procedures would affect a human body.
    According to the United States Food and Drugs Administration nine out of ten drugs deemed successful through animal tests, fail in human clinical trials.
    Overestimation of the human benefits of invasive animal research appears to be widespread. In a 2011 review of research using non-human primates, in which a panel of eminent scientists examined virtually all UK primate research conducted during a recent decade, the reviewers concluded, 'In most cases [...] little direct evidence was available of actual medical benefit in the form of changes in clinical practice or new treatments.'
    2) Using animals for product testing, medical research and surgical skills training is disrespectful of animal life
    It has been claimed that the number of animals used in Australia for medical research and surgical skills training is indicative of a lack of regard for animal life.
    Helen Marston, the chief executive of Humane Research Australia, has claimed that Australia is the fourth highest user of animals in experiments and surgery training in the world after China, Japan and the US. More than six million animals, including baboons, dogs, cats and native mammals, are being used every year in Australia for medical research, experiments and surgical skills training, according to official figures. These figures are inevitably conservative as some states, including Queensland, have stopped revealing the number of animals used. The last figure that has been made available was for 2009.
    3) The regulations protecting animals used in product testing, medical research and surgical skills training are inadequate
    Dr Denise Russell, a research fellow at the University of Wollongong specialising in animals and ethics, has claimed that there is a lack of adequate ethical scrutiny of the experimental projects in which animals are used.
    Dr Russell has stated, 'The ethical scrutiny for research comes at the end of a long process of grant application and approval. There is then an incentive for the animal ethics committees to simply accept the proposals. (If they don't institutions are denied that funding.) The scientists on animal ethics committees are required to be from areas using animal research and can't be expected to have good knowledge of alternatives.'

  • Animals should not be used for testing

    1. Using animals for product testing, medical research and surgical skills training does not produce reliable results
    It has been claimed that the differences between animal species and human being are so great that product testing, medical research and surgical skills training done on animals does not adequately approximate how products, treatments or surgical procedures would affect a human body.
    According to the United States Food and Drugs Administration nine out of ten drugs deemed successful through animal tests, fail in human clinical trials.
    Overestimation of the human benefits of invasive animal research appears to be widespread. In a 2011 review of research using non-human primates, in which a panel of eminent scientists examined virtually all UK primate research conducted during a recent decade, the reviewers concluded, 'In most cases [...] little direct evidence was available of actual medical benefit in the form of changes in clinical practice or new treatments.'
    2) Using animals for product testing, medical research and surgical skills training is disrespectful of animal life
    It has been claimed that the number of animals used in Australia for medical research and surgical skills training is indicative of a lack of regard for animal life.
    Helen Marston, the chief executive of Humane Research Australia, has claimed that Australia is the fourth highest user of animals in experiments and surgery training in the world after China, Japan and the US. More than six million animals, including baboons, dogs, cats and native mammals, are being used every year in Australia for medical research, experiments and surgical skills training, according to official figures. These figures are inevitably conservative as some states, including Queensland, have stopped revealing the number of animals used. The last figure that has been made available was for 2009.
    3) The regulations protecting animals used in product testing, medical research and surgical skills training are inadequate
    Dr Denise Russell, a research fellow at the University of Wollongong specialising in animals and ethics, has claimed that there is a lack of adequate ethical scrutiny of the experimental projects in which animals are used.
    Dr Russell has stated, 'The ethical scrutiny for research comes at the end of a long process of grant application and approval. There is then an incentive for the animal ethics committees to simply accept the proposals. (If they don't institutions are denied that funding.) The scientists on animal ethics committees are required to be from areas using animal research and can't be expected to have good knowledge of alternatives.'

  • Animals should not be used for testing.

    In the past, there was no other way to safely test products. Over time, however, effective methods for testing products that do not require animals have been developed. It is no longer necessary to continue using animals to ensure the safety of products for people. Furthermore, ending animal testing would promote the production of products free of potentially harmful ingredients.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.