# FILE NAME: 00001468.soc
# TITLE: Is it ethical for humans to test on non-human animals to develop medicine for humans? [89ff9df50601d26d86d1a4556534c6ac]
# 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: 5
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - It is mostly unethical to test on non-human animals to develop products for humans. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using. The following articles were the primary resources used in writing this consensus statement: [1] "Animal Experiments" By: E.G. Farrar, Vet. Rec., 64:649, 1953. [2] "The Ethics of Animal Experimentation" By: J. B. Russell and W. M. S. Russell, 2nd edition London: UFAW, 1978. [3] Animals & Science: The Use of Animals in Research and Education by the Massachussetts Society for Medical Research, undated. [4] Selected List of "Alternatives
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - Animal testing is unethical and should be abolished. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. However, the number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: In general, the testing of products on animals is unethical. However, the testing of products to provide health benefits to humans is justified if there are no alternative forms of testing. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as computer modelling, tissue cultures and the use of human volunteers. The use of animals in medical research is more complicated. In some cases, such as cancer research, there are no alternatives to using animals. In these cases the use of animals in medical research is justified if it has the potential to save lives. The number of animals used in medical research should be reduced as much as possible. The use of animals in medical research should be tightly regulated and monitored. Labels should be mandatory on all products, to allow the public to make an informed choice about what they are buying and using.
1: 1,2,3,4
1: 2,4,1,3
1: 4,2,3,1
1: 4,1,2,3
1: 4,2,1,3