# FILE NAME: 00001153.soc
# TITLE: Is it okay to use non-animal products for medical testing? [96a2e86cf22f9f7f9b3a3a57ef3ad09c]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - Yes, it is acceptable to use non-animal products for medical testing. The most common use of non-animal testing is in the development of new drugs. Animal tests are a poor indicator of human responses, so using animal testing methods may result in the release of a drug that is not actually effective on humans. The use of non-animal testing would mean less products fail, saving money, time and animals. The benefits are not just to the animals though, as using animals in medical testing can lead to public outcry. Other non-animal testing methods that could be used are tissue cultures, human cell lines and computer modelling. All of these are equally valid, cheaper and quicker to use than animal testing.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - It is not acceptable to use non-animal products for medical testing. This would be cruel as the product would not be tested on humans and could therefore be harmful. There is no way of knowing if it would cause an adverse reaction in humans.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is okay to use non-animal products for medical testing as long as they are reliable and accurate. There are other alternatives to using animals and it is not necessary to harm animals for medical testing. There are many humans who are willing to be paid to test medicines. Animals have a right to be treated well and not made to suffer for us. They feel pain just as we do.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of using non-animal products for medical testing. The group felt that the use of animals for medical testing was unnecessary and that there were other alternatives that could be used. The group felt that animals should not be made to suffer for the benefit of humans. The group felt that humans could be used for medical testing and that this would be a more reliable way to test medicines. The group felt that humans could consent to this type of testing and that they could be paid for their participation. The group felt that this would be a more ethical way to test medicines.
3: 1,4,3,2
1: 3,1,4,2
1: 4,1,3,2