Animal Experimentation

Animal Experimentation

Proposition

Animal experimentation should not be stopped; it should only be limited from causing severe pain or cruel deaths.

Introduction

The health welfare of millions of people can be attributed to the new discoveries and inventions by human beings overtime. Human beings have become modernized and knowledgeable in the field of medicine and up to recent times, human healthcare is positively being tackled with in advancement forms through scientific research. Therefore, the scientific research entails animal experimentation. Scientists justify their prescription of human medication by the findings of the experiment done.

Animal experimentation refers to the process of manipulating animals with a bid to conduct scientific research. Scientific research involves determination of certain diseases that affect human beings or animals and the remedies necessary. Scientists use animals in their research because they have some similar characteristics as human beings hence, the results will be compatible. Animal experiments also clarify major biological aspects in a living organism. The scientist imposes different types of diseases on laboratory animals to find out how they effect and how the animals will react to specified treatment. The most used vertebrae by scientific researchers in their studies are mice, rats and birds.

The issue of animal experimentation however, is controversial issue among many minds with some opposing the process. They term it as an abuse to animal life in its own environment. There are veterinary laws that ensure the laboratory animals are kept in good condition and are taken care of well. The pain subjected to them is only minimal and in case it exceeds the limit, scientists should end its life painlessly. The opponents of animal experimentation argue that animals have feelings like human beings, and, therefore, they should not be harmed. However, proponents defend the idea by saying that animals would still kill themselves when they hunt so animal experimentation is not entirely the cause of animal death. The benefits of animal experimentation are numerous as compared to its demerits.

Benefits and Refutation of Animal Experimentation

Benefits

            Dr. Andrew Knight, a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, and an acclaimed veterinarian and a bioethicist, takes a note on animal experimentation in one of his books, “The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments”. According to Knight (2011), “animal experimentation has a variety of benefits, and it is essential in the discovery of treatments to different sorts of diseases” (2). This scientific process of research has enabled the recognition of multiple vaccines that have so far proved to be effective. As a result, human beings are adequately prevented from diseases such as smallpox, measles, polio, diphtheria and so on. The list is endless and with further advancement, more prevention will be realized as human healthcare is gradually improved.

James G. Fox is a certified university lecturer and director of comparative medicine at the Whitaker College of Health and Sciences situated in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In his book, “Laboratory Animal Medicine”, Fox (2002), asserts that new drugs are developed by observation of their effects on the animals under experimentation. Introduction of antibiotics, insulin, and HIV and cancer treatments was possible because of animal experimentation. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is still in the process of being tackled as researchers are determined to discover the ultimate cure. Anti-retrovirals for AIDS patients were also developed through the same process.Furthermore, the alternative methods of deriving scientific treatment are not highly regarded by most scientists because they do not result to high quality drugs as animal experimentation does. Researchers would want to know the degree of that the drug would have on an individual so that if it is too toxic, he or she can reduce the chemical composition in the drug. Animal experimentation is not only done to improve the healthcare of human beings but also to the benefit of the animals themselves. It has paved way for breakthroughs in veterinary medicine that cures the animal diseases. Therefore, animal experimentation cannot be blindly dismissed as animal torture since it offers solutions in animal problems.

To stop research through animal experimentation means that human life will be at stake because it will halt the discovery of appropriate and powerful medicine. Hence, human beings will suffer of deadly ailments. Similar assertions are made by Ellen Paul and Jeffrey Paul in their book, “Why Animal Experimentation Matters: the Use of Animals in Medical Research.” On her part, Ellen Frankei Paul is the deputy director of the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, and an acclaimed professor of political science. Similarly, Jeffery Paul is a certified professor of philosophy at the Bowling Green State University. According to Paul and Paul (2001, p. 36), “the major reason why scientists have not yielded to halting animal experimentation is that it serves a major purpose in medical breakthroughs that are needed to save human lives”. Scientific research through animal testing is not as costly as alternative methods since there are many animals that can be bred in the lab to reproduce. Those in support of animal experimentation believe that human and animal lives stand a chance for survival and safety.

Refutation

People who negate the idea of animal experimentation base the argument on animal feelings, which, they presume, are similar to those of human beings. Hence, according to them, animals should enjoy the same freedom human beings have and should not be subjected to pain in laboratories. Animal cruelty can be traced in a number of cases but generally, scientists follow to the letter rules concerning animal treatment. B. Carlsson is an expert on veterinary and social ethics, in addition to being well versed on issues of animal welfare. In his article, “Ethical Issues in Animal Experimentation: View of the Animal Rightist”, Carlsson (1986, p. 65), demands that ethical issues in animal experimentation must be addressed.

Proponents believe that the withdrawal of certain drugs in the market is because of the side effects they have on human beings. On that note, they point out that the side effects are caused because of the animal experimentation. According to them, the species are different from human beings hence a discovery from them will not adequately treat a human being. Despite the fact, that certain animals have the same DNA as human beings, their reaction to the administered drugs will be quite different and therefore the research on animals will not have a major impact. Animal suffering depicted in the cosmetic industry when chemicals are administered to their eyes has also been a controversial issue that has provoked the voices of animal rights groups.

Opponents believe that animals’ rights are equal to those of human beings and so they should be protected. However, the animal value is indisputably less than human lives so their consideration should not be kept at purr that of human life. It becomes apparent that the research experiment cannot be conducted on a healthy human being because he or she is aware of suffering and can communicate unlike animals. According to Paul and Paul (2001), “we do not need to conduct a study of the pathology of an ailment in a healthy human being since it is fatal. Common morality strongly disputes the thought of an experiment on a human being” (25). Human culture and morality does not allow scientist, who are also human beings, to use their fellow humans to substitute animals in experimentation. However, opponents believe that animal research imposes harm to animals and that scientists should opt for alternative methods while conducting biological research. They advocate for legislation that protect the rights of animals.

Opponents also think that the amount of biological information gotten by scientists is enough and that there is no need for further research. However, what these animal campaigners fail to realize is that new ailments keep coming up and mitigation is seriously needed to avert them. Their lives are also at risk because they might also be vulnerable to such ailments. Animal experimentation will also save their lives in the case where they might fall victims. The animals that they are so passionate about will multiply while the human race diminishes. This would be a rather ironic picture because human beings are the sanest animals in the planet.

Animal Welfare Act

            The 1966 Animal Welfare Act is one of the legislations put across to protect the rights of animals from cruelty in labs by researchers. This law stipulates the limitation in the use of animals in scientific research and the manner in which they are treated. It proposes the standards that should be considered in caring for and treating commercial bred animals and those that are used for experiments in research. Since 1966, there have been amendments in the law such as improved standards for laboratory animals. Researchers are therefore meant to uphold this rule taking great care of animals in the lab and avoiding animal maltreatment when administering their procedures.

Earlier on, animal experimentation used to be done behind closed doors but as the number of animal campaigners rose, validity of animal research became the main area of concern. Opponents of animal experimentation are also pushing forward the establishment of laws that will dictate the number of animals taken in the laboratory for research. According to them, it is mandatory for biomedical firms to define the standard number of animals set aside for research to avoid too many animal deaths. Many articles have reported the type of animals that scientists are obligated to report of their usage in laboratory experiments. Such mammals are guinea pigs, dogs, cats, hamsters and primates. USDA is in charge of such reports to regulate the number of animals used.

Other Substitutes

            Opponents of animal experimentation also argue that rats and mice are entirely different from human beings. Hence, they should not be used in experiments, which determine the human healthcare. Their claims that these animals are different species from human beings do not hold water in as much there is some truth in them. It scientifically proven that some tissues and genetic structure in these small living organisms are similar to those of human beings.

The advocates for animal welfare propose other physiological processes that can also be used to evaluate the human biological processes and develop new drugs to cure ailments. Alternatives to the Bioassay for Botulinum Toxin Testing (2006) show methods that are complex than animal experimentation and entail computational models and algorithms. Development of different models, which will involve cheaper living organisms than mammals, is also underway. However, human beings cannot die because of waiting for a solution that is still being proven or tested. Animal experimentation will still fill the vacuum because since time immemorial, it has been the basic means for identifying treatments and causes of various diseases. As long as researchers and stakeholders observe the rules in the animal welfare act, there is no much offense committed in testing an animal. In addition, the discovery of alternative methods is not 100% guarantee that they will be compatible with the human anatomy.

Opponents also assert that animal experimentation is irrelevant to human beings because some of the animal’s biological metabolism is altered by the poor laboratory environment in which they are kept. Scientific researchers have tried to instill in opponents the mentality that what they believe is animal suffering is a critical means in attaining developments in the field of medicine solely to improve their health standards. It is difficult for scientific researchers to develop alternative techniques in the laboratories because of very little incentives and the fact that such alternatives might not produce the desired results, as they would speculate.

Through systematic studies of genetics and animal tissues, scientists concluded from their findings that similarities are more narrowed between mice, rats or chimpanzees and human beings. It is because scientists experimented on the animals that they found several treatments and vaccines to deadly diseases. Therefore, the claims of the opponents are solid in this case. Consistent research in them will provide an entry to future medicine discovery. J. S. Romm is an associate professor of Humanities at the University of Colorado Boulder, and the accredited author of the paper “Aristotle’s Elephant and the Myth of Alexander’s Scientific Patronage”. According to Romm (1989), experimentation on animals began decades ago from the likes of Aristotle who used animals in scientific research and it is what was found out that answer certain present questions in human beings. It was until the sixteenth century that opposition emerged concerning the scientific process. Currently, mice, rats and chimpanzee are still needed in research because none other compatible animal has been discovered by scientists.

Conclusion

Protection and safety of human life is common morality. It would be crueler to perform the experiment on a human being or even worse let them die because no treatment is discovered. Scientists have and are still going out of their ways to discover treatment for ailments that have caused suffering among human beings for a long time. Animal experimentation is the ultimate determinant for such efforts, thus, the practice should not be stopped. It ensures both human and animal healthcare and future advancements by scientists will better the situation. Soon more vaccines and effective medicine will be discovered. The only way to find the cure of a disease affecting human beings is to conduct a test on another living organism with similar genes. However, there should be regulations that moderate the handling of such animals to ensure they are treated fairly. Scientific researchers should follow to the letter rules concerning animal well-being so that they avoid hindrance on their on-going researches.

Work Cited

Paul, Ellen F, and Jeffrey Paul. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. New Brunswick [N.J.: Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation, 2001. Print.

Carlsson, B. “Ethical Issues in Animal Experimentation: View of the Animal Rightist.” Acta Physiologica Scandinavica. 128 (1986): 50-68. Print.

“Animal Welfare Act.” The American Biology Teacher. 33.4 (1971): 242. Print.

“Alternatives to the Bioassay for Botulinum Toxin Testing.” 2006. Print.

Knight, Andrew. The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Internet resource.

Fox, James G. Laboratory Animal Medicine. Amsterdam: Academic Press, 2002. Internet resource.

Romm, JS. “Aristotle’s Elephant and the Myth of Alexander’s Scientific Patronage.” American Journal of Philology. 110.4 (1989): 566-75. Print.

 

 

 

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]