Is it necessary to torture small animals for the sake of an obvious experimental result?

I do ecology, and it's plant ecology, so it's very convenient, so when you need to fill in whether animal experiments are unethical, you can easily choose no, because they are all plants, and of course there are some microorganisms (soil nematodes), but after all, our consciousness is not so compassionate.

But there is an "obvious" in the subject's question. I don't know how to be "obvious", science has to be an objective thing in general, if you rely on feeling that the starting point is wrong, if you don't have evidence you just don't have evidence!

If there is already a lot of evidence to prove the conclusion, I just want to ask why such a pointless experiment is being done, knowing that if there is nothing new in the experiment, then it is nothing more than a waste of money to do it.

Although it is a bit unpleasant to say, or a little lofty, in general, it should be a basic idea in it, after all, on a large level, science itself is for progress and not for repetition. Because I switched from environmental science to ecology, I have never dissected animals, and my knowledge of zoology is quite lacking, so I don't know whether it is appropriate to use experimental rabbits for display. But you must remember that you don't think it's obvious that you can rely on the main law to talk about the problem, there is no basis for that!

Knowing the taste of pork, is it still necessary to eat it? After eating at noon, is it necessary to wash the dishes if you want to eat at night?

It's not unfair, if you don't use animals as test subjects, you can only use humans, which is not good for the development of human beings, and it's not a very cruel thing, and many experiments don't harm animal lives.

This is not very fair to animals, but out of humanitarianism, people cannot be used for experiments, and they are not so cruel, and generally animals that do experiments will be well protected.

It's really unfair to animals, but isn't it the same when people eat meat? The vegetables you eat for dinner are also considered to be unfair to plants, and plants and animals have life. So from another perspective, animal testing is done to save more people who are plagued by diseases.

This is very unfair to animals, after all, animals are also a life, and it is very cruel to use animals for experiments, and this practice is not good.

How to think about experimenting with animals Is it necessary.

There is a lot of controversy and different opinions on this issue. In the field of scientific research, animal experiments are widely used to understand and explore the basic mechanisms of life, find new drugs and methods, etc. However, there are also moral and ethical controversies about animal experimentation.

From some perspectives, animal experimentation is a must. In some cases, animal experimentation may be a necessary step in the development of new drugs or other ** methods that require experimentation and testing to verify their efficacy and safety. In addition, some basic research may also require animal experiments to better understand the basic mechanisms of life.

Most of the knowledge we have about common diseases, such as infectious diseases and cancer, is based on animal experiments. However, many people also believe that animal testing is ethically and morally controversial. Many animal experiments can cause severe pain and suffering to animals, and even lead to their death.

Sometimes, these experiments are not directly applicable to humans, and errors can occur. Therefore, there is a need for adequate assessment and trade-offs in ethical, moral, scientific and technical aspects, and measures to ensure the rationality of animal testing and reduce animal suffering when necessary. At the same time, we need to actively develop and promote animal-free testing methods to better protect the rights and interests of animals.