Scientific experiments on animals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabriel2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
Yes, that’s what I envisioned when I thought of a product within the cosmetic industry that has significant benefits.

I think one of the issues in this thread is that there isn’t an agreement on what constitutes “cosmetics”. A lot of people have raised “lipstick”, which is a personal beautification product (for lack of a better term), but there are also medical cosmetic procedures, such as skin grafts for people with extensive scarring (for e.g. surviving a wildfire).
 
thistle said:
NOTHING in the cosmetics industry “contributes to caring for or saving lives”.
Click to expand...
How else do we determine harm possible to human lives if we do not first test it out?

It contributes directly to saving human lives to verify the safety of a product.
 
Bithynian said:
there are also medical cosmetic procedures, such as skin grafts for people with extensive scarring (for e.g. surviving a wildfire).
Click to expand...
These are medical procedures and not part of the cosmetics industry.
 
vz71 said:
It contributes directly to saving human lives to verify the safety of a product.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously suggesting we kill animals to make sure lipstick, make-up or shampoos are not harmful to humans???
 
thistle said:
40.png
Bithynian:
there are also medical cosmetic procedures, such as skin grafts for people with extensive scarring (for e.g. surviving a wildfire).
Click to expand...
These are medical procedures and not part of the cosmetics industry.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a cosmetic surgery.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that because there’s nothing wrong with cosmetics.
 
TK421 said:
there’s nothing wrong with cosmetics.
Click to expand...
Killing animals for shampoos and lipstick!!! I wonder what Jesus would say to that?
I am ashamed to be even taking part in this thread!
I am out.
 
People, what about experiments using bacteria and fungi? Like studies on bacteria colony, uses of fungi for food production etc? Is morally acceptable to modify the DNA of these living beings?
 
Which are the situations in which we cannot use bacteria and fungi in scientific experiments?
 
Gabriel2 said:
People, what about experiments using bacteria and fungi? Like studies on bacteria colony, uses of fungi for food production etc? Is morally acceptable to modify the DNA of these living beings?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is morally acceptable. As an example, most
insulin is biosynthetic, and a seminal piece of research was the insertion of the human insulin gene into E. Coli bacteria.
Gabriel2 said:
Which are the situations in which we cannot use bacteria and fungi in scientific experiments?
Click to expand...
I don’t think there are any conditions under which the inclusion of a micro-organism ipso facto as an experimental subject results in it being immoral.

From another perspective, animal rights advocates don’t ordinarily incorporate micro-organisms into their advocacy.
 
What about using bacteria to produce plants with “foreign” genes? Like transgenic corn.
 
Gabriel2 said:
What about using bacteria to produce plants with “foreign” genes? Like transgenic corn.
Click to expand...
(Caveat: I’m not a bioethicist.)

I think you’re touching on two distinct issues:

(1) The experimental use of micro-organisms to aid in genetic modification of other organisms; and
(2) The production of genetically modified food for human consumption.

Insofar as I’ve read of the Church’s few teachings in respect to (1), the experimental use of micro-organisms in itself would not e immoral. It would depend on the outcome and intention of its use: there is a world of a difference between the biosynthetic production of a therapeutic good (such as insulin) compared to the developmental of microbiological weaponry (such as anthrax).

In respect to (2), the Church has been wary of explicitly promoting genetically modified food, but has not taught that is illicit or immoral. It is somewhat of a grey area.
 
Last edited:
Are organic food healthier than transgenic? It looks like some monasteries grow organic plants.
 
Are those the only people wearing lipstick and mascara?

What scientific questions about these products remain unanswered that we need to continue forcing animals to ingest these products or have them injected, applied to eyes and skin, etc?
 
thistle said:
40.png
TK421:
there’s nothing wrong with cosmetics.
Click to expand...
Killing animals for shampoos and lipstick!!! I wonder what Jesus would say to that?
I am ashamed to be even taking part in this thread!
I am out.
Click to expand...
I would prefer for you to show me where the official statement is decrying this is as a grave evil, because there are billions of souls at stake and right now you’ve used a stretchy interpretation from the Church’s catechetical book and nothing else.

These days, I think the need for animal testing for these products is pretty minimal but the Church has had a hundred years to speak about this if it needed to speak about it.

If you really want to take this to its logical conclusion, there is an increasingly weak argument for why a person in a developed country supposedly needs to eat meat, and animal testing is less than a drop in a bucket in comparison.
 
Last edited:
Animals are living creatures with real feelings. While scientific research involving animals has benefited man immeasurably, it’s not something that gives me the warm-and-fuzzies.
 
What you’re saying is not inline with Catholic Church teaching. Please speak to your Priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top