# FILE NAME: 00001744.soc
# TITLE: Is it morally right to use animals in medical research? [b30e8cf986429ad125c90c00fb43f8d1]
# 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 not morally desirable to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative, and the potential to alleviate human suffering and extend human life is significant, it may be deemed justifiable. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research.  Topic #2: A controversial question This question was designed to present a controversial question. In the following sections, opinions of individual participants, an initial draft of a consensus statement, the critiques, and a final consensus view will be given.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - There is a strong moral argument that the use of animals in medical research is wrong. We should not use animals for unnecessary research. We should not use animals that are unable to consent to the research. We should use the least amount of animals possible for vital research that is necessary to test a treatment that will alleviate human suffering and extend human life. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research. However, it may be justifiable in certain circumstances, for example where a large number of humans stand to benefit, or where the research could save many human lives. In this case, we would advocate for a stringent and high-quality test to ensure that as few animals as possible are used in the research, and that the animals do not suffer unnecessarily. We would also advocate that a clear distinction be made between vital and unnecessary research. The consensus statement above was reached by a process of discussion, debate and negotiation. This consensus statement is the final and agreed opinion of the group, and all participants are in agreement with the statement.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - It is not morally desirable to use animals in medical research, but where there is no other alternative, it may be considered morally justifiable. In this case, it would be critical that the research is of extremely high quality to ensure that few animals suffer unnecessarily and to ensure the potential for the research to relieve human suffering is significant. It is also important to consider the context of the research, a clear distinction being made between vital research and less-significant, cosmetic research.
1: 1,3,2,4
1: 3,1,2,4
1: 3,1,4,2
1: 2,4,3,1
1: 1,2,3,4