Animal experiments are widely used in the process of developing new medicines and in testing the safety of a certain product. It is normal for an experimenter working in the medical research institution to use animals as their test subjects for experiments and research. This is because of the procedure they are following. Animals tend to share a number of physiological genetic similarities with a human that is why it can be helpful to the research. Therefore they are subjected to modify or confirm certain data about the drug used before proceeding for the human trials. It is stated in the Physician Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) website that “the primary purpose of medical research is to promote human health… and animal research …show more content…
The moral character of the researcher is not important, it is the ethical approach to the experiment which makes the animal experimentation morally acceptable.
On the contrary of promoting animal rights, the utilitarian instincts of most people take over their judgment in this issue. Utilitarian is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. In this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness. Researcher’s decision to use animal research has undergone a series of procedure. They exert their best efforts to find a replacement as much as possible before resenting to animal use. The three Rs are a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals. These three R’s are: Reduction, Refinement and
…show more content…
It requires that the proposals for research involving the use of animals must be fully assessed in terms of any harm to the animals. This involves detailed examination of the particular procedures and experiments, and the numbers and types of animal used. These are then weighed against the potential benefits of the project. This cost–benefit analysis is almost unique to UK animal research legislation; only German law has a similar requirement. This new policy ensures that the use of animals is permissible as long as it is approved by the necessary agencies and standards of animal welfare and care. By this law, this protects the animals from abuse from illegal animal testing. Clinical testing were filtered and sort out after the law was enforced to minimized the use of animals. Through this laws and procedures, animal testing is acquiring more positive feedback since the officials are doing something to minimized and protect them. Considering it morally, is a judgment where we have to think of the greater good and the benefits it may give the humans. Knowing that the humans are also doing something to uphold and minimize their casualties to considering the animal
Since the value of animal life as a living being should be recognized and to a certain extent equated to the value of human life, the animal experiments raise a range of ethical questions (Armstrong & Botzler,
Animals in Research and Testing According to PETA, the animals who are in research and testing “shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed,” (“Animal Testing 101”). Animal-testing is the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, especially for purposes of determining the safety of substances, such as foods, beauty products, and/or drugs. Although animal research plays a crucial role in experiments focused on disease treatments and preventions, it is cruel, inhumane, and should be stopped. This is an act that should be banned and prohibited in all states and countries
Research has further assisted in the development of drugs such as insulin and penicillin. It was said in the beginning that animals would never feel pain while going through such experiments, but there have been many times where labs go against that assumption. In some labs, the aftermath of the experiments are so immoral, it’s impossible for one to think what that animal endured. As of today, labs across the world are trying to enforce the 3Rs, which are replacement, reduction, and refinement. The 3Rs is a campaign who hopes to replace animals with non-living models, reduce the number of animals begin used, and finally refine the practice of using animals according to Hajar.
“A Question of Ethics” by Jane Goodall and “Animal Research Saves Lives” by Heloisa Sabin presents two sides of the same coin in regards to Animal testing. Thereby, questioning the validity or necessity of animal research and testing today. In “A Question of Ethics” by Goodall she presents a scenery of the living conditions of the animals which are often isolated; posing the ultimate questions of, whether animal research is essential to medical research? Or How many tests are performed only to conform to laws and not out of scientific merit? The Suggestion was made that scientists should explore alternative options, such as testing on cell and tissue cultures.
The practice of animal testing is a very debatable topic. “Each year, more than 100 million animals, including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds are killed in U.S. laboratories” (Experiments). “The term “animal testing” refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products, and testing the human health and/or environmental safety of consumer and industry products such as cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives, pharmaceuticals and industrial/agro-chemicals” (About). There are numerous pros and cons of using animals in experiments for humans for our everyday needs. There is different pros for animal testing, including helping researchers to find drugs and treatments, help ensure the safety of drugs, there are no other testing alternatives, and it provides an opportunity to examine a complete life cycle.
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.
Why Animal Testing is Wrong The human race has greatly benefitted through the use of animals. They have not only been a great form of companionship for people, but have also helped with the success in the world of medicine. For many years, the rights of animals and animal experimentation have been up for debate on whether or not it should be legal. Some may find that animal testing has led to major advancements in the medical world and that it is a small price to pay to save millions of lives, but others believe it is inhumane and that animals should be given the same rights as humans.
Abstract Animal testing the experiments performed on animals that are used to test the effectiveness and safety of a wide range of things, from medication to cosmetics. They are also used to understand how the human body works. Animal testing is one of the major controversial issues, but animal testing has dramatically contributed to science. First, some people think that animal testing should not be used for testing medical techniques and drugs. However, medical research involving animal testing improved the health of human beings.
Should Animal Testing be Allowed? Animal testing has been a controversial issue for a long time now. Whether or not animal testing is humane or not, both sides of the argument are hard to choose from . On one hand you have the possibility of curing diseases, saving lives, and helping the human race. On the other hand you have the lives of many innocent animals who are being injected, probed, caged and mistreated for just facts.
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.
Moreover, animals are used to develop medical treatments, check the safety of any products before people can use it and in science education. Therefore, without using animals in the medical and scientific studies the products and all the medicine would be based on theory only. Furthermore, people will use something that may cause serious damages to them. Animal testing has provided many
Throughout moral, humanistic, and social perspectives animal testing is beneficial for medical evolution. Animals ' rights are of less moral worth than human rights. Humans are complex beings with large well developed brains, which form sizeable social groups, have significant ability to communicate with one another, and possess desires, preferences and interests about the world. Humans have an awareness of their own existence and mortality, and as such are beings worthy of moral consideration. According to Pycroft (2011), “Without access to live organisms we would know far less bout the function of the cardiovascular, how digestion works…
It is true that animal testing requires a lot of investment. Not only that money is spent on advanced technologies, it is also spent to pay for scientists’ expertise on this particular field. In order for the scientists to do their research, they need suitable equipment and substances. Every year, the National institutes of Health finances between $12 billion to $14.5 billion on animal testing as indicated in a study done by the government (Bastach, 2013). Besides, scientists need to consider the fact that animals need to be sheltered, fed and cared for to keep them alive.
Animal ethics -The welfare of the rats was not monitored. Ethical considerations in all research in psychology includes- Protection of participants from informed Consent ,Withdrawal, Confidentiality, Deception and Debriefing and protection from physical and mental harm. But there are slight exceptions for consent and deception. Animal research has slightly different ethical considerations. Differences regard harming participants and ethical
Research funding itself is allocated to safely established procedures and not considering the well-being of research animals is a way of cutting costs and maximizing profit, since alternative methods will require further investment and decreasing cruelty will require additional resources and techniques. This shifts the maximization of good that we normally expect of science and especially medical science (where the use of lab animals is especially prevalent) to a maximization of profit for the companies backing the research. Consideration of the good for the living research tools is among the first things to be