Scientific experiments on animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabriel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gabriel2

Guest
Hello, God bless you.
In the CCC, numbers 2292-2296, is it written about scientific research. As far as I could understand, when it comes to human people. But, I have some doubts regarded to it. Well, when is it morally acceptable to use animals in scientific research, like mice, monkeys and microorganisms, like bacteria and fungi? And GMOs (Genetically modified organisms) are morally correct?

Thank you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There’s at least one old thread addressing Catholicism and GMOs.

To guide any further discussion, here is what the Catechism says about animal experimentation.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2417.htm
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
Click to expand...
I’ll probably end up posting more on the topic later, but this is a good start.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel2 said:
Hello, God bless you.
In the CCC, numbers 2292-2296, is it written about scientific research. As far as I could understand, when it comes to human people. But, I have some doubts regarded to it. Well, when is it morally acceptable to use animals in scientific research, like mice, monkeys and microorganisms, like bacteria and fungi? And GMOs (Genetically modified organisms) are morally correct?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
The Church view is clear as quoted by blackforest.

It is not morally acceptable to experiment on animals for the cosmetic industry.

It is morally acceptable to experiment on animals if it is for the medical benefit of humans, new treatments and cures for diseases, for example, provided there is not an alternative to using animals.
 
thistle said:
40.png
Gabriel2:
Hello, God bless you.
In the CCC, numbers 2292-2296, is it written about scientific research. As far as I could understand, when it comes to human people. But, I have some doubts regarded to it. Well, when is it morally acceptable to use animals in scientific research, like mice, monkeys and microorganisms, like bacteria and fungi? And GMOs (Genetically modified organisms) are morally correct?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
The Church view is clear as quoted by blackforest.

It is not morally acceptable to experiment on animals for the cosmetic industry.

It is morally acceptable to experiment on animals if it is for the medical benefit of humans, new treatments and cures for diseases, for example, provided there is not an alternative to using animals.
Click to expand...
Cosmetic reasons are morally acceptable as well.

Also, genetic modifications are morally acceptable. See here:

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
It is not morally acceptable to experiment on animals for the cosmetic industry.
Click to expand...
That’s not explicitly stated by the Church. It may be the opinion of some; however, I couldn’t find an Official Church Statement pertaining to Cosmetics.
 
Cruciferi said:
That’s not explicitly stated by the Church. It may be the opinion of some; however, I couldn’t find an Official Church Statement pertaining to Cosmetics.
Click to expand...
The CCC teaching states experiments for medical benefit of humans are acceptable.
I dare anyone to tell me lipstick is for the medical benefit of humans.
 
TK421 said:
Cosmetic reasons are morally acceptable as well.

Also, genetic modifications are morally acceptable. See here:

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Read the CCC you quoted. It says experiments on animals that contribute to caring and saving of human lives are acceptable.
Nobody can say cosmetics in any shape or form does that.
 
Cruciferi said:
Cosmetics also includes soaps, lotions and shampoos. There’s definitely more than lipstick involved here.
Click to expand...
That was an example. I mean the entire cosmetics industry. Nothing in that industry justifies experimenting on animals.
 
This part of the Catechism is definitely open for interpretation. It does not necessarily condemn cosmetics.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
The CCC teaching states experiments for medical benefit of humans are acceptable.
I dare anyone to tell me lipstick is for the medical benefit of humans.
Click to expand...
Lipstick is for the medical benefit of humans. People use lipstick to stand out during special occasions or maybe to make themselves physically appealing or maybe for recreation. It falls under the same broad category as festive clothing or jewelry or perfumes or incenses or even wine and spirits. None of these things are necessary but they are not inherently evil.

Cosmetics are an extremely broad tent, but just to name some things that might be considered cosmetic or not strictly necessary, or designed towards enhancement rather than survival:

Any hair product
Any skin product
Any workout supplement or workout product or fitness product
Any weight lose product
Any oral hygiene product (it is for medical reasons but it also for cosmetic reasons)
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
Take the GIRM for example
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about that.
thistle said:
By default everything else is NOT allowed.
Click to expand...
The Church didn’t single out the cosmetic industry. You did and that’s your opinion.

As @TK421 pointed out, cosmetics cover a very broad array of products. Many of those products can and do fall under:

“contributes to caring for or saving human lives.”
 
thistle said:
Take the GIRM for example. What is stated in the GIRM is what must be done at Mass. It does not state what must not be done because by default what is not in the GIRM is not permitted at Mass.
Click to expand...
Off-topic but this is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Cruciferi said:
The Church didn’t single out the cosmetic industry. You did and that’s your opinion.
Click to expand...
Cosmetic testing would fall under CCC 2417 because it is scientific experimentation on animals. It therefore must be conducted “within reasonable limits” and “[contribute] to caring for or saving human lives.” Could you explain to us how these tests, for which the FDA itself believes there are more humane and scientifically valid alternatives, meet the Church’s criteria?
 
Last edited:
Of course, methods have improved and they might not need to do it anyway, but throughout the 20th century animal testing was done for cosmetics and there was no official statement from the Church decrying it.

When something is clearly evil, the Church speaks about it. It is morally compelled to do this under pain of eternal condemnation. That is why the Church was compelled to speak about the pill, because it was a new technology and millions of people started using it.

There is no “something is evil by default until proven otherwise” That isn’t how it works. If something is seriously evil then the Church must do something about it. A personal interpretation from a catethetical book does not count.
 
Last edited:
Cruciferi said:
“contributes to caring for or saving human lives.”
Click to expand...
NOTHING in the cosmetics industry “contributes to caring for or saving lives”. Anyone who thinks otherwise is trying to justify cruelty to animals!!
 
repentant2 said:
Yes because people with extensive facial scarring and other issues would never benefit psychologically from being able to make themselves look better and conceal defects that might cause self esteem issues.
Click to expand...
For psychological problems they see a therapist. No need to kill an animal for self esteem issues!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top