Option: Use animals as subjects in the testing of all products and procedures that might adversely affect human health.
Option: Use animals as subjects for the testing of only those drugs and surgical procedures intended to save or extend human lives; avoid using animals in the testing of procedures or substances, for example, cosmetics, that are not vital to human existence.
Option: Both the Animal Welfare Institute and the Humane Society of the United States advocate (1) reduction in the number of animals killed in the course of conducting research or manufacturing goods, (2) refinement in the methods used by those who deal with animals to reduce the pain felt by those animals, and (3) replacement of animals with other methods for achieving similar objectives, for example, in vitro techniques or computer simulations to study the effects of drugs on the human body.
Option: Ban the use of animals to test any drugs or surgical procedures intended for the treatment of humans.
Con: Even if animal experimentation is the only way researchers can test medicines or innovative surgical procedures intended for eventual use in humans, there is no adequate justification for such experimentation. Benefits to human life do not make the sacrifice of animal lives morally right. The transference of risk from human to animal violates the rights of animals and so is unjustified.
Con: Animals are conscious beings and may suffer pain when they are used as subjects in medical experiments.
Con: The bonds of trust between humans and animals should not be broken.
Pro: No alternative or no better way exists for testing medicines or innovative surgical procedures intended for eventual use in humans.
Con: Better ways than the use of animals exist for testing the toxicity of cosmetics or evaluating the efficacy of certain drugs. There are alternatives to the use of animals in studies of toxicity.
Pro: Animals that would have been killed anyway provide some value to human life when they are used as subjects in medical experiments.