Ethics of animal testingIs animal testing right or wrong? No one has really answered this question so far. Everyone has their own opinion about it. I personally think that if we are not abusing, testing should be allowed. I don't think it's necessary to test animals for every little thing that comes onto the market, but sure why not when it comes to life and death matters like cancer. How else could we ensure that drugs don't kill us? Safety tests are conducted on a wide range of chemicals and products, including drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, pesticides, food products and packaging materials. Chemical and consumer product safety testing probably accounts for only about 10 to 20 percent of animal use in laboratories, or about two to four million animals in the United States. Yet the use of animals in safety testing figures prominently in the controversy over animal research. It raises questions such as the ethics and humanity of deliberately poisoning animals, the appropriateness of harming animals for the purpose of marketing a new cosmetic or household product, the applicability of animal data to humans, and the possibility of saving millions of animals by developing alternatives to a handful of widely spread. procedures used. The Animals in Research section is committed to promoting alternatives to the use of animals in product testing, as well as in biomedical research and education. Alternatives are scientific methods that meet one or more of the "three R's": replace the use of animals in a scientific procedure, reduce the number of animals used in a procedure, and/or refine a procedure so that... . paper medium...it is permissible to kill and inflict pain to prevent a greater (quantitatively or qualitatively) harm, to protect life and when no reasonable and feasible alternative is available. The attempt to claim that moral responsibility is reserved for the human species is counterproductive. If so, then we surely have a moral obligation to the weakest and meekest. If this were not the case, what right do we have to decide who will live and who will die (in pain)? The increasingly shaky “fact” that species do not interbreed “proves” that species are distinct, some say. But who can deny that we share most of our genetic material with the fly and the mouse? We are not as different as we would like to be. And ever-increasing cruelty towards other species will not establish our genetic supremacy, but only our moral inferiority.