d by his belief based on his gathered evidence that the lab tests that use animal rarely result to anything that benefits humankind, that mostly are just for commercial intents. That people and animals are different species, thus using animals with people as the supposed beneficiary is not logical.
in the medical sciences, research with animals has resulted in major achievements in psychology, which s/he believes have contributed to important benefits for human beings. S/he further cites that the biofeedback technique, which people use to control high blood pressure, originated from studies using lab animals.
in the issue of animal cruelty, there had been a study that investigated 600 of these alleged accusations, but eventually did not support the charge of cruelty. S/he further points out that instances occur, but are infrequent and not typical of psychological experiments.
people—including animal rights advocates—do not think that animals share the characteristics that allow them the same rights as humans; and these people condone pet sterilization, disregarding the animals right to breed.
of the many experiments using animals, only a few contribute to important medical or psychological research. S/he further argues that a vast number of experiments are used for commercial purposes: to test new shampoos, cosmetics, food additives, or detergents.
Yes, I believe both psychologists presented sound arguments based the criteria. Their claims are all verifiable, not simply opinions. They both cited sources, which can also be checked if they match. Finally, the incidents cited were more than one.
Animals may be used in lab experiments as long as guidelines to the humane treatment are observed. Humans have been plagued by new diseases with some killing relentlessly, like the swine flu, among so many others. AIDS, after years of research, has yet remained incurable. If lab research using animals could give us hope in combating these diseases, then I would