Table 1 Responses to the ‘benefits’ arguments and counterarguments

Argument (A)/counterargument (CA)

A1. Animal experimentation benefits humans greatly.

CA: If great human benefits justify using animals in medical research, this should also justify using humans in the same medical research.

CA: If animals can experience pain and suffering, it remains unclear why we morally may use them in experiments for human benefit.

A2: Animal experimentation is necessary for human benefit.

CA: More humans would benefit if the money spent on animal experiments was instead devoted to humanitarian aid (for example, in developing countries).

CA: There are now alternative experimental methods that do not use animals and that allow science to advance.

CA: It is unclear why the statement animal experimentation is necessary for human benefits justifies animal experiments, but the statement human experimentation is necessary for human benefits does not justify the same experiments on humans.

A3: There are no alternatives to animal experimentation.

CA: Researchers have not looked hard enough for alternatives to animal experimentation. For example, since using animals to test drugs has been required by law, researchers may have assumed that there is no other way.

CA: If more effort was devoted to developing alternative research methods that do not use animals, animal experimentation may not be necessary anymore.

A4: Humans naturally need to seek knowledge.

CA: This can justify almost anything, including harmful experiments on humans against their will, in order to gain knowledge.

CA: We have learned a great deal from earthquakes, fires and warfare; but, this does not justify recreating these things in order to gain more knowledge.