Absolutely. I value human life more than animal life. That does not mean to say I am for ill treatment of animals or even unnecessary testing. Cosmetic testing may have gone too far. However, using animal subjects that could lead to curing major diseases in quite acceptable.
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioral studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research. More: en.wikipedia.org.
I value my family members' life more than a random person's life. If someone from my family needs a heart transplant, do I have the right to kill the random person?
I must agree with Mr. John Cees. A topic such as this can easily be blown out of proportion, and we must remember that this is a debate, not an emotional barn. We are speaking of animal live VS human lives, and in that case I definitely support animal testing, although humane conditions should be reviewed. However, what you brought up, which was Human lives VS Human lives, you bring up an entirely new debate.
That's taking the argument ad absurdum. I'm hungry this morning, so I will fry up some bacon, crisp. I will not shoot a passerby and butcher him for food, no matter how hungry I am.
Yes, and we should also allow human testing.
can i test my new drug on you?
With informed permission people should be used to test things.
But who is willing to do that? In order to new drugs be tested on people, it has to be tested on animals. Otherwise bilion people would die.
Thrust me, there are a lot of experimentation that need human being, and tons of people desperate enough (for money or for a chance to survive).
I study biotechnology in Italy, and i can assure you we could avance medicine definitely faster with human testing.
Having in mind that our goal, as a human species, is surviving. We make evrything to assure that we can live better for more time. If so we need to test drugs or whatever in animals, so be it. We must have in mind that only we should do that when we have some theorical background support, and not use one of the scientific methods, try and repeat
I think no, although without experiments you can not learn new things
Of course, how else will we advance our biotechnology fast enough to save millions/billions of potential lives? We are not at the point yet of giving this up, that point would be a quasi perfect simulation. Biotechnology advances slow enough already (the slowest tech in my view) for us to give up our best tools.
So: Yes, on every species!