-
The Impact of Animal Rights on the Use of Animals for Biomedical Research, Product Testing, & Education
In this article, Baier states that he believes animal testing for biomedical purposes should be allowed because it has helped so many people. He would like to reduce the suffering the animals endure of course but believes the good outways the bad. He also believes testing for biomedical purposes is more important than testing for products like makeup. Let us see how this opinions compares with others closer to modern day. -
Translating Animal Research into Clinical Benefit
In this article, Hackam explains why people test on animals. Basically, it is safer to test on animals first and then have a trial with humans rather than to just administer the medication to humans. However, Hackam argues that animal testing has not been as effective as people think. Lastly, Heckam ends by stating that animal testing should not be done away with completely but instead be regulated.s -
Compare
This opinion is different than the author of the 1993 article because Hackam is not completely for animal testing. He is skeptical about the value in it. As time passed, people started to question if animal testing was worth it. -
Compare
As we move through history, we can see the opinion change from completely for animal testing to suggesting a new way to test without the use of animals at all. Opinions began to change from "do what is best for humans at all costs" to "animal matter too, even if it will negatively affect humans." -
Putting Chemicals on a Path to Better Risk Assessment
In this article, Stokstad argues that using computers to predict toxicity is a better way to test products than to use animals. However, Stokstad then explains that using computers would be way more expensive and that Congress passed a law requiring that all products be tested on animals first. However, he did not suggest continuing animal testing. He still completely backs up switching to computers. -
Preclinical Safety Testing for Cell-Based Products Using Animals
In this article, McBlane acknowledges the downfalls of animal testing but focusses more on the benefits. He acknowledges that not all findings are pf relevance to humans and human diseases seem to have a more chronic nature whereas animal diseases seem to have a more acute nature. Despite all of this, he believes animal testing is a good thing because there might be a therapeutic benefit in patients and it could show the toxicity level of the medical drug being tested. -
Compare
While opinion over time seemed to have swayed to doing away with animal testing, this article written by McBlane just recently came out and is in support of animal testing. This shows that this is an issue that people will never come to an agreement on because it is based on opinion. All doctors and scientists see this issue in a different way but it all boils down to one question, "Who is more important: the humans or the animals?"