Why are animals important in biomedical research?

Is it okay to do research on animals?

• 1) Is it okay to do research on animals? 2) ShouldCan Pharmeceutical companes test their drugs on Animals before they test them on humans? 3) Should/Can Surgeons practice on Animals before they do thier first surgery on a human? 4) Should/Can Animals be used for Lab Experiments/Research Please answer yes or no to the follwing questions 1) Would the idea that the Animal might die change your mind on the above questions. 2) Would the way an animal dies change your mind. Then I'd get really crazy and say list the order of animal sacrifice Mouse Rat Monkey Pig Cow Chicken Horse Dog Cat Thanks!

• Answer:

  I believe that animal testing should be against the law, because why should animals be allow to be made to be tested, it a little like humans being tested on too, which is now illegal. Animals and humans are both the same, and should both we treated equally Viewpoints: The ethical questions raised by performing experiments on animals are subject to much debate, and viewpoints have shifted significantly over the 20th century. There remain disagreements about which procedures are useful for which purposes, as well as disagreements over which ethical principles apply to which species. The dominant ethical position worldwide is that achievement of scientific and medical goals using animal testing is desirable, so long as animal suffering and use is minimized. The British government has additionally required that the cost to animals in an experiment be weighed against the gain in knowledge. Some medical schools and agencies in China, Japan, and South Korea have built cenotaphs for killed animals. In Japan there are also annual memorial services for animals sacrificed at medical school. A wide range of minority viewpoints exist. The view that animals have moral rights (animal rights) is a philosophical position proposed by Tom Regan, among others, who argues that animals are beings with beliefs and desires, and as such are the "subjects of a life" with moral value and therefore moral rights. Regan still sees ethical differences between killing human and non-human animals, and argues that to save the former it is permissible to kill the latter. Likewise, a "moral dilemma" view suggests that avoiding potential benefit to humans is unacceptable on similar grounds, and holds the issue to be a dilemma in balancing such harm to humans to the harm done to animals in research. In contrast, an abolitionist view in animal rights holds that there is no moral justification for any harmful research on animals that is not to the benefit of the individual animal. Bernard Rollin argues that benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering, and that human beings have no moral right to use an animal in ways that do not benefit that individual. Another prominent position is that of philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that there are no grounds to include a being's species in considerations of whether their suffering is important in utilitarian moral considerations. Although these arguments have not been widely accepted, governments such as the Netherlands and New Zealand have responded to the concerns by outlawing invasive experiments on certain classes of non-human primates, particularly the great apes. Here are different cases of animal testing that have drawn the public's attention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Prominent_cases Alternatives to animal testing: Scientists and governments state that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The "three Rs" are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries: -Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim. -Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals. -Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used. Although such principles have been welcomed as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups, they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research, and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare.