Is it okay for scientists to experiment on animals that help save human lives?
336613
Yes.\nFor now it is the only relatively accurate way to assess \ntoxicity of a new substance to living organism.\nIt should be controlled and kept to minimum but no other way, unless those that say "No" would agree to replace suffering animals.\nI simply can't understand people who think that it is wrong to experiment but OK to eat or take away they habitat, poison they environment but when it comes to using them for saving lives of others - no way.\nSimply visit hospital near u and see the suffering of those that cannot be saved - answer is clear (at least to me).
1052713
Studies how people /animals react to certain situations.
1097070
All animals respond to changes. It's kind of the definition of animal. \n\nThe cheapest animals to use for a school project are fruit flies (and you can kill them and not feel too bad), goldfish (if they die by accident, it's okay), and rodents (some of the students will be very sad if one dies).
356981
I've been reading up on this new research as well. I'm really excited about it and am curious to see how well it works in human trials. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time something looks promising in lab animals but fails miserably in human trials.
1123043
Yes...however, the human race is one of the few species on the planet that kills one another for conflict not just for survival. In most cases when animals confront eachother it is very rare that one of the animals is killed, let alone seriously injured.
429288
It has been proven numerous times that animal testing is pointless, because more often than not, when tests of a product are performed on humans, the results are very different that they were when the tests were performed on animals, so the animals were tortured by souless people for no reason.\n\nMurderers, rapists and child molesters should be used for testing.  At least then they could actually be giving back from the society that they took from, instead of just enjoying themselves in prison.
497886
Genetically it is not really a suitable replacement.There are rejection problems involved in interspecies transplants.However current studies are being made into the suitability of pigs as donor material for various organ transplants.
744565
Depends how much he was getting paid.\n\nSeriously though, i'd think it was a bit odd. But then again, better testing on people than animals?
850537
i dont think putting them in zoo is good for them \nits really hurt to see animal captive in a zoo captive from freedom animal used to get it in its imvironment \nwe must captive them only if its necessary to them if they have problems or factors will end thier existence in the earth \nlike bear panda that we myst put them in zoo to be able to increase thier numbers
623017
With the stuff they're experimenting with nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised.  For example, they are studying some reptiles that can regrow their body parts in an attempt to find a way for humans to regrow their organs.  I'm not a scientist, but this may be able to reanimate the body given the right conditions.
617173
Pigs and humans: no.\nChimps and humans: maybe.\n\nHonestly, the scientific jury is still out on whether or not humans are able to crossbreed with apes.  Rumours have cropped up within the scientific community for years, but no definitive cases have presented themselves.  Check out the link below for some interesting reading on the topic.
359710
It's not so much the acutal medical risks, but the ehtical and moral implications of conducting research in the field.\n\nThe following is an excerpt from a research paper I recently wrote concerning stem cell research:\n\nEmbryonic stem cell research raises immense ethical and religious concern:\nThe issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths- even many of the same faith- coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions. (“Bush Embryonic Stem Cell Decision” 1)\nQuite often, the status of an embryo is debated among scientists, politicians, theologians, philosophers, and even everyday people. There are many ideas circulating the globe as some vie to protect the embryo and others hope to use it to benefit society. Those that oppose stem cell research claim that the methods scientists use are not morally justifiable. Human embryos, in their minds, are “not mere biological tissues or clusters of cells; they are the tiniest of human beings” (Espejo 49). According to the Human Embryo Research Panel and the National Bioethics Commission, the embryo should be considered a living organism from its earliest stages (Espejo 46-50). People therefore claim that scientists are alienating the rights of living human beings by performing experiments on embryos: \nThe painful lessons of the past should have taught us that human beings must not be conscripted for research without their permission- no matter what the alleged justification- especially when that research means the forfeiture of their health or lives. Even if an individual’s death is believed to be otherwise imminent, we still do not have a license to engage in lethal experimentation- just as we may not experiment on death row prisoners or harvest their organs without their consent. (Espejo 49)\nThe widespread Christian view that life begins at the moment of conception has caused many to believe that the destruction of the human embryo is murder (Espejo 4). People also believe that is irrelevant whether the embryos are capable of implanting in a uterus and developing, as they are embryos nonetheless (Morris 2). As Morris questions, “are we willing to recognize life, even if it’s living in a Petri dish?” (2). Those that sympathize with these concerns feel that research requiring the destruction of a human embryo should be banned. Others argue that since IVF procedures often generate more embryos than needed, the excess embryos should be used for potentially life-saving research rather than being discarded (Espejo 36-37). Also, they claim embryos do not have the same rights as adult humans. The suggestion that a mass of 50-100 cells with no heart and no brain is entitled to the same protections is “unprecedented and not embodied in American law” (Espejo 38). With this in mind, it seems that embryonic stem cell research should not be undermined by the aforementioned arguments. There are additional concerns however. The use of SCNT is often criticized by those opposed to cloning, as a majority of people view cloning as morally wrong.  SCNT has been used in reproductive cloning, such as the cloning of Dolly the sheep. In the public’s mind, the distinction between this form of cloning and therapeutic cloning, which involves SCNT used for medical purposes, has blurred. The two should not be confused however, as they are completely separate procedures. Outlawing the use of SCNT would prevent the development of very promising techniques for curing disease
936052
Animals are afforded some rights in our society, coinciding with their lower intellect.  That is, they do not have the right to vote, but are entitled to a clean healthy life if owned by someone.  If they are to be put to death - it must be according to nature (ex: feeding live rats to a pet snake).  People however do not have the right to experiment on animals in their own home - doing so is considered cruelty - something which the ASPCA takes very seriously!  I would highly encourage you to turn in your "friends" before they conduct further "experiments".  Or at the very least contact a local university that does some animal experimentation - and educate your friends on the standards professionals have to adhere too!   \n\nResearchers who conduct animal experiments within a laboratory environment have a license to do so, have to follow very strict protocols in caring for the animals before, during and after experimentation (everything from feeding time, amount of food, temperature, etc is documented several times per day), have to account for every step of the experiment, and answer to an oversight board.  If it is believed the animal would feel any pain whatsoever, or experienced effects detrimental to it's health during the experiment - the rules state the animal(s) must be euthanized in a humane way immediately after the experiment has concluded.  Before any such experiments begin, a true scientist also needs to justify why it is necessary to use animals, what research has already been done, and why non-animal alternatives won't suffice.  They must also lay out the entire experiment design including the expected results.  If the potential experiment is not justified - the oversight board WILL nix it before it begins.
193555
I think testing on animals often times is unethical. The end does not always justify the means to me. In fact, with some religions it all about the means. Stealing and killing are often means to a desired end, but clearly unethical.\n\nAlso I believe using a human embreyo for an ethical end but by unethicals means is wrong.
458441
My guess would be that no, you could not evaluate the efficicacy of antidepressants in animals.  This is because depression isn't something you can measure objectively and there are no lab tests you can do to see if someone (animal or human) is depressed.  Depression is more subjective or experiential, and diagnosing it relies on the patient's narrative.  Since you can't ask a rabbit how they're feeling today compared to yesterday, or if they have hope for the future, you're not going to be able to see if the drugs were effective.\n\nHowever, you probably could look at side effects alone.  You wouldn't know if it was working against the depression, but you would know if it caused any serious side effects.  But I don't like the idea of testing on animals (inhumane).
449907
NO\n\nGod-fearing men see in animals part of God’s generous provision for human welfare. Animals have served man as burden bearers, as sources of food and clothing, as sanitation agents, and as helpers in the vital activities of plowing and harvesting. Their variety of form and color has delighted his eye; their habits and instincts have been and still are an extensive field for inquiry into the marvels of God’s creative work. Though animals die in the same manner as man, they do not share his hope of a resurrection.—2Pe 2:12; \n\nAnimals were created with a limited life span, humans had the prospect of living on earth forever. (Genesis 3:22, 23; Psalm 37:29) Jesus Christ said that to enjoy “everlasting life,” we must exercise faith and take in knowledge of God—things that animals are incapable of doing. (John 3:36; 17:3)\n\nGod created animals for the sake of humans. Animals can help them do their work and can serve as their companions or pets. They also serve to magnify God’s love and wisdom.\n\nThe Creator gave life to both humans and animals. But for how long were they to continue to live? Scientists report that humans seem to have the potential of endless life, so that investigators are perplexed as to why man dies. The Bible gives the reason. It says that the Creator gave the first humans the opportunity of living forever. Death came only because they rebelled. (Gen. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rom. 5:12) What, though, of animals? They are not capable of conscious rebellion against God; yet they live only for a length of time and then die. Hence, it is clear that the Creator never purposed that individual animals live forever. For them death was natural.—2 Pet. 2:12.
583500
All animals can carry bacteria, so this could be possible, but the doctors should be able to detect this.  Best of luck.