Scientific innovation is based on trial and error. Experiment upon experiment is conducted in order to ensure that a certain hypothesis or treatment is valid or safe. However, there is a growing controversy behind the morality of certain types of testing; especially on animals. Scientists have been conducting experiments on animals for centuries, which has resulted in many medical advances that would have otherwise taken much longer to realize. Consequently though, a great multitude of people has begun to advocate for animal rights in this area. They believe that certain restrictions should be set in place to limit the amount of suffering animals go through or to do away with testing on them all together. Several of these advocates claim that …show more content…
They hold that “Pain is an intrinsic evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply not morally permissible” (Source B). “[Animals in laboratories] are almost always subjected to isolation, depression, and anxiety” (Source F). These people believe that animal research is an aberration and should be ended immediately. While there does lie credibility in that animals should not forcibly be made to suffer, that does not mean that the solution is to get rid of animal research completely. There is reasonable logic as to why scientists prefer this method above all others. “If there were good alternatives to animals that worked better or as well, for less money and hassle, scientists would use them” (Source …show more content…
Countless vaccines have been developed to counter diseases such as polio, chicken pox, and other diseases which used to claim thousands of lives. This was made possible though, by testing different methods and techniques on animals, in order to make sure that it would be safe for humans. The fact cannot be refuted that using animals for medical research has saved a vast amount of human lives. “If all animal experimentation were stopped, the slowdown would be real and the cost would be high… A delay in developing a vaccine [for Malaria] by just one month would kill 225,000 people” (Source D). There comes a point in which it is justified for “animals to be sacrificed for the cause of humanity” (Source
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Many human diseases exist in other species also. Cancer, heart failure, asthma, rabies, etc. are natural diseases in many different animals and testing began with animals with cures, preventions, and treatments now available for animals and humans. The polio vaccine used in humans is still used in wild chimps today and was originally tested on primates before it was introduced to humans. The elimination of smallpox is possible because it was originally tested on animal. These are only a few that we contribute to the use of animal testing.
There is much controversy with regards to animal testing for medical research and there has been throughout the centuries. We can trace the issue back all the way to the 4th century when we have the first record of animal experimentation, Aristotle dissecting animals for study. In the 1600s, scientists began using animals as a way to explore the human body which led to many advancements in the medical field. Such advancements include Emil von Bering finding a cure for diphtheria toxin for guinea pigs; further research allowed him to produce a diphtheria vaccine for humans (Bright).In spite of these many medical achievements brought on through the use of animal testing, there are still those that argue the practice is not justifiable and should
Animal experimentation is a very noteworthy subject that has created quite a stir amongst the world. Anything from monkeys becoming anemic due to starvation to puppies with open sores from a new topical cream to relieve itching; animal experimentation is something that has been around since 129 AD. Testing human diseases or medicines on animals is factually not accurate, considering that there are so many differences between a human and a non-human animal. According to PETA, ASPCA, The Humane Society, and the article The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation by Aysha Akhtar, they explain that animal experimentation can be avoided and is an unnecessary step in today’s testing. Most humans typically care for non-human animals and take
Correspondingly, Pro-Con states, “Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments.” This depicts how animals should be considered with just as much as respect and dignity as humans. Therefore, we have no right to inflict cruelty on something that deserves to be on the earth just as much as humans
Every day, thousands of animals are subjected to cruel, inhumane treatment. In the United States, there are many laws in place to prevent the mistreatment of animals, but one of the most harmful ways of abusing animals is not only legal, but considered by many to be completely justified. The process described is that of animal experimentation, the act of performing experiments on an animal that can deliberately cause the animal suffering and even death. Animal testing should be abolished because it is unnecessary, inaccurate, and cruel to animals. Firstly, animal testing is an inaccurate and outdated means of gathering information.
In the end, the minimal protections offered by the AWA and PHS policy provide no real safety or relief to the millions of animals in labs and offer only a false sense of security to the caring public. All it takes is for people to know the facts about animal testing and what truly goes on behind closed doors. If more people understood how it affects the lives of animals, maybe, just maybe their could be a change in the way people think about animal
The companies in charge of the laboratories are the providers of the funds, facilities, and personnel of the IACUC. Therefore, the company can sway the IACUC’s ruling in favor of the business because the companies picked these IACUC members to oversee the ethical treatment in the facilities. In addition, the IACUC cannot actually prevent the laboratories from causing suffering in animal experimentation if the scientist deems the experiment as a scientific need. This means that if the experimenters claim that the use of procedures that subject laboratory animals to pain and distress is necessary to further human health, then the IACUC will approve the experiment. This is a problem that needs to be fixed because it allows scientific experimenters to conduct any procedure that will cause suffering to the animals.
Unfortunately, this can cause unpredictable results that can prolong the forthcoming treatments and cures for scientists to discover due to incorrect information collected. In a study, researchers have reported that “out of 93 dangerous side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal testing” (“Arguments against Animal”). This displays how a majority of the data concluded during animal testing is not functional to the public because of the limited positive outcomes. There are innumerable obstacles and challenges that scientists are faced daily when conducting medical research. For instance, when researchers were analyzing cancer medications over 93% of the materials that were executed successfully during animal experimentation
Imagine an enraged animal rights activist charging toward a scientist in a white lab coat, desperate to free the little mice that are being used as test subjects. Although comical, this scene may be quite accurate when describing the passion that animal lovers have when it comes to the touchy subject of animal testing. For centuries, animal testing has been used in the medical research field, however many are now beginning to question whether it is ethical. Millions of animals are killed per year due to animal testing, so is this practice worth banning? Animal testing is a controversial subject, with supporters pointing out the medical advances that have stemmed from animal research and animal rights activists declaring it cruel and immoral.
In the present age, it is inevitable and undeniable to develop scientific research given the high demand for medicine and veterinary health. It is universally acknowledged that animals play an indispensable role in scientific research. The British Royal Society, argues that" virtually every medical achievement in the past century reliant on the use of animals in some way. "(The Royal Society 2004, p.1)
Introduction Animals testing have significantly contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge in general and to biomedical progress specifically. Many example showing that laboratory animals in medical development and other aspects have significantly influenced human health and reduced suffering, for example improved diagnosis of infectious disease (Hau, Jann, Schapiro & Steven, 2002). But since 1960s and 1970s, animals testing protests has gained prominence and strength, people start to argue is it moral to continue “cruel” animal testing. Animal Testing is a Moral Act In the rest of this article, I shall apply different concept under utilitarianism try to discuss whether animal testing are moral acts. It is important to notice that (1) in this article, applying the general idea of utilitarianism which is “the greatest happiness of greatest number” and (2) the animals testing under the rules and regulations.
Researchers estimated over 26 million animals were used for scientific tests and commercial testing subject every year in the United States. Over the years animals were used to be tested on medical treatments, products for human uses, health care, and etc. The practice of researching on living animals has started since 500 BC. Opponents of this act say that it is cruel to experiment on animals, there are other methods available to replace the cruel act of experimenting on living animals, and that the human bodies and animal’s bodies are totally two different features and the research often yields irrelevant results. The federal Animal Welfare or AWA passed the animal testing act in 1966 and amended in 1970, 1976, and 1985.
Animal experimentation is not only helpful but also crucial for advances in human health. For example, people make striking progress on vaccine about malaria, which killed two million every year, by using mice as a test (Cohen 2). Therefore, people can gain advantage using animals. Moreover, Heffner pointed out that “[animal experimentation] benefits humans, which in turn benefits lab animals” (72). For example, the author points out a laboratory is more secure than in the wild (Heffner 75).
One of the major issues that support animal testing is the fact that it has been used successfully in history to develop cures and treatments for diseases which killed human being in large numbers. The following are examples of illnesses and viruses that were cured through the use of animal testing : the development of Penicillin was primarily based on the testing of the Penicillin drugs on mice,
Science researches believe that products which have been tested on animals will make humans’ life better. However, the main concern on this issue is that animals are suffering from unnecessary pain. Animals are mostly exposed to radiation, forced to inhale poisonous gases and injected with harmful substances prior to the experiment. Thus, animal testing should be banned because it is cruel, the result is unreliable and expensive.