• Question: where do you stand on using animal for experiments and trails with medicine and commercial products, do you agree with using defenceless creatures to test make up even though using them has partially advanced science techniques is what is being done to them cruelty in your eyes??

    Asked by hayleybrooks1 to Freya, Katy, Louise, Pamela on 16 Mar 2010 in Categories: .
    • Photo: Pamela Docherty

      Pamela Docherty answered on 16 Mar 2010:


      That’s a good question, and you phrased it well. I’m definitely not an expert in this (mathematicians don’t do any experiments, let alone with animals!), but my personal opinion is that it is worth it. The British Royal Society (which is the society of all the best scientists in Britain) has argued that every medical achievement of the 20th century relied on animal testing in some way. Obviously testing cosmetics is slightly different from medical breakthroughs, and it’s actually banned in the UK.

    • Photo: anon

      anon answered on 16 Mar 2010:


      Woah! What a question!

      In my opinion, we must use animals in some experiments. However, I DO NOT believe that ALL experiments need animals and I am pleased to see that there are strict regulations on the use of animals.

      Physicists rarely use animals in experiments. Having said that we do levitate frogs between magnets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E and some of the first creatures that were sent to space were animals. In my opinion, the former (frogs) was unnecessary, but, I’m assured, harmless. The latter I feel was essential as without testing rockets with chimps, we would be unsure that we could return a human safely from space.

      As for medical trials, I think that these are essential also. For example, we can grow cancer cells in a petri dish, but this is unlike the body of .a mammal, therefore what might work in a laboratory may not work in a body. I would not like to give a cancer sufferer false hope just because I have laboratory results that “cure cancer” when it has not been tested.

      As for the advances in make-up…well, I do use a lot of make-up, partially because I suffered from skin-cancer as a teenager and have to use (tinted) sunblock even in winter! However, this is one of those cases where I would argue that sun-block is a medical use. However, I do not agree that new make-ups should be tested on animals for two reasons:
      1. Purely aesthetic reasons do not constitute a good enough reason to make an animal suffer.
      2. There are enough existing products on the market and enough research about products so that make-up can now be made that can be tested on humans.

      One final thought: Taking antibiotics kills defenceless creatures (bacteria) which you probably do when you are ill. Taking antibiotics is also a common approach to stopping acne (spots). Here you are not participating in a trial but actively killing bacteria to make you feel better or look better? Where do you stand on that?

    • Photo: Louise Pendry

      Louise Pendry answered on 17 Mar 2010:


      Hey Haley,

      That’s a really interesting question. Thanks for asking it. Hopefully we can chat about this some more as I would love to hear what you think.

      This is something that I really struggle with. I have friends that test on animals and I have friends who used to stand outside laboratories protesting about animal testing. So I hear both sides of the argument. I hate the suffering that can be involved in animal testing but I also recognise the benefits.

      If by cruelty we mean causing suffering then what I think it that animal experimentation is:
      a) An evil to the animal tested on (if suffering is caused)
      BUT
      b) But sometimes the lesser of two evils because it reduces the total amount of suffering experienced

      E.g. Painkillers alleviate suffering for lots of people and animals. But some animals will have to have suffered to invent and test painkillers. If 1000 people or animals experience no pain-suffering because they can take a painkiller that has caused suffering to 10 animals then was it more evil to produce the painkillers or less evil?

      Before scientists test on animals they have to get permission from an Ethics Committee. Scientists have to show that the potential benefit of their work outweighs the harm to the animals that will be used. The more harm the experiment will cause to the arm the greater the benefits of their work must be before the Ethics Committee will approve it. This is because in this country the Home Office (the part of the government that regulates animal testing) takes a utilitarian approach to animal testing. This means the benefits of the research must outweigh the costs of the research before scientists will get approval for their research to go ahead. Regulated experiments can only be approved if there are no scientifically suitable alternatives that replace animal use, reduce the number of animals needed or refine the procedures used to cause less suffering – these are known as the 3Rs (I took this info from the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act which is the law that scientists using animals have to abide by ( http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoc/321/321-02.htm#gen44)

      But we should all never ever forget that behind all animal experiments is an animal somewhere that may be suffering in the name of scientific progress and that animal will never benefit in any way from the results of the experiment. So, for that animal, the costs definitely outweigh the benefits. This is why some people get very angry about animals being used. This is the basis of animal rights. Most animal testing arguments are a battle between these two view points: 1) Animal rights, and 2) Utilitarians

      So, to summarise what I think about testing on animals – it is wrong/evil/cruel but often the lesser of two wrongs/evils/cruels – life’s rarely black and white!

    • Photo: Freya Harrison

      Freya Harrison answered on 18 Mar 2010:


      This is a really tough question and I don’t think there’s a simple answer. I completely disagree with animal testing for cosmetic products, but when it comes to medicine, is it a “necessary evil”? Or, let’s turn this around – would you refuse to take a medicine that could save your life, or relieve a lot of pain, because it had been tested on animals? I don’t think many people would. Or even: would you volunteer to take part in trials of a new medicine as an alternative to animal testing?

      There is a movement in research called the Three R’s: Replacing animals with other ways to test medicines, Reducing the numbers of animals used and Refining methods used in animal testing to minimise pain and suffering as far as possible. There is a strong emphasis on finding ways to achieve these aims, and when scientists apply for a research grant that involves testing things on animals they have to explain what they are doing to try and meet these three targets. So there is much more control than there used to be.

      I also think it’s important to note that some anti-animal testing groups use very old photos and descriptions of experiments to illustrate their material – they show things that aren’t done any more. This is quite an issue in Oxford at the moment – we have protesters every week outside a new buidling designed to house animals for experiments. Now the aim of this buidling is to help meet those three Rs – it will reduce the number of animals used (mainly mice) and house them in much better conditions. So while I understand the protesters’ motivation, I think it is misleading of them to stand outside this building with massive posters showing cats with electrodes in their brains. (They’re also standing outside a department that houses people who have done amazing work on animal welfare and conservation, which is another matter entirely!)

      Personally, I would like to see animal testing phased out and replaced with something else, but at the moment we don’t have enough good alternatives and personally I’m not brave enough to go without medical treatment in protest at the use of animals. In the meantime, I think all animal tests should be very strictly controlled based on how big the likely contribution to human health will be. e.g. I would rate curing chronic pain as more important and justified than testing a new formulation of paracetamol, and I would rate curing serious childhood illnesses as more important than artifically extending our lifespan just because people want to live until they’re 120.

      In short – it’s good to have ideals, but it’s hard to live up to them all the time!

    • Photo: Katy Milne

      Katy Milne answered on 18 Mar 2010:


      I think there isn’t necessarily a yes or no answer to animal testing. Each situation needs be weighed up individually. For example, I would say that animal testing would be justified for medical purposes, where there is a clear need that will directly help people who are suffering. However, personally I am not sure about testing lipstick on animals. On the other hand, which causes the animals more suffering? Possibly the medical testing. It is very difficult.

Comments