More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics behind human experimentation
Pros and cons of human experimentation
Should human experimentation be allowed
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Disease ravages the population, killing hundreds, and researchers scramble to find a vaccine. How far will they go in their pursuit for prevention? What is worth progress? The debate of human experimentation is long-lived and there is still no clear answer. Human experimentation has had a controversial past, simultaneously beneficial and detrimental to humankind. Its ambiguity has continued in the 21st century, but despite continued harm to the human race, human experimentation has few restrictions in the present day. There should be more restrictions, and countries should be more serious about following them in order to prevent further unnecessary pain and suffering.
While it may seem that this phenomenon is only recent, experimenting on fellow homo sapiens has been around for longer than most could imagine. While we do not know its origin, the earliest recorded human experimentation was in the form of
…show more content…
Smallpox, a disease in which blisters form on the skin and often form sores that fall off leaving “deep, pitted scars” (Smallpox Symptoms) was common, deadly, and uncured. There was an old tale that people infected with cowpox were immune to smallpox, and Jenner decided to test the theory. He took pus from the hand of a milkmaid infected with cowpox, and transferred it into the gardener’s 8-year-old boy. They boy caught cowpox but recovered, and Jenner then infected the boy with smallpox. The boy was immune, and Jenner had pioneered the first vaccine in the history of humankind. While Jenner’s experiment was successful, there are several ethical questions raised when reviewing it. If Jenner had been wrong, and the boy had died from smallpox, then Jenner may be regarded as a villain instead of a saint. The boy’s father hadn’t known about Jenner’s experiment, nor had anyone else. Thankfully, the experiment worked and we have a vaccine for smallpox. J. Marion Sims’ story is a little
Without animal research, cures for such diseases as typhoid, diphtheria, and polio might never have existed. Without animal research, the development of antibiotics and insulin would have been delayed. Without animal research, many human beings would now be dead. However, because of animal testing, 200,000 dogs, 50,000 cats, 60,000 primates, 1.5 million hamsters, and uncounted millions of rats and mice are experimented upon and die each year, as living fodder for the great human scientific machine. Some would say that animal research is an integral part of progress; unfortunately, this is often true. On the whole, animal testing is a necessary evil that should be reduced and eliminated whenever possible.
Edward Jenner, “the father of immunology”, was born on May 17, 1749. He was one of nine siblings and he was treated for smallpox for a very long period of his childhood. I predict that his treatment to small pox as an infant encouraged his work into creating the vaccine for smallpox itself. It is said that his work “saved more lives than the work of any other human”. He found the similarities of cowpox and smallpox, and then analyzed his experiments to conclude that previous cowpox patients had immunization to smallpox.
Albert Sabin, the developer of the polio vaccine once said, “Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year.” Polio is a deadly disease caused by a virus that spreads from person to person. This infectious disease renders the brain and spinal cord helpless while also ensuring a permanent case of paralysis to the victim. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “…13,000 to 20,000 para-lytic cases were reported annually,” before the 18th century. After the introduction of the polio vaccine, “…a total of 2,525 paralytic cases were reported, compared with 61 in 1965.” This dramatic decrease in the prominence of the polio disease can only be attributed to the success of animal testing. Animal experimentation is used in the research of genetics, drug testing, biology, toxicity testing, cosmetic testing, and many other fields. Despite all of its beneficial traits, animal testing has been wildly controversial over the past decades because of its perceived unethical treatment towards animals. Although animal testing may be deemed unethical by many, it is a form of medical testing that has not only saved lives but has also greatly revolutionized the medical world.
The dropping and the atomic bomb and the continued use of human subjects during scientific testing in the 20th century continues to be a controversial subject. It is because the actions carried out saved many lives and that those hurt were informed and volunteered that these methods were moral. It is because of the debate surrounding these actions that science has continued to evolve. From these earlier practices, more rigid experimental methods are enforced. These new regulations protect the patient and continue to ensure that those sacrificing their safety to aid others are not injured without fully understanding the risks involved. The modern world will continue to benefit from the actions taken by the United States during the 20th century.
During one of his earlier apprenticeships, Jenner noticed milkmaids with a disease called cowpox. Cowpox is a close relative to smallpox and is only mild in humans. Pustules appear on the hands and a basic cold is also brought on. At Jenner’s young age he was able to link these two viruses together and come up with a theory for immunization. In 1796, while still attending medical school, Jenner decided to test this theory between smallpox and cowpox. He used a dairymaid, who was a patient of his named Sarah Nelms, who had contracted cowpox and had ripe pustules on her hands. Jenner realized this was his opportunity to test someone who had not contracted smallpox yet. He picked an eight-year old boy named James Phipps to use as his test subject. He scraped open a spot of James' arm and rubbed in a dissected piece of Sarah Nelms pustule into the open wound. A couple days later James became ill with cowpox but was well again within a week. This test proved that cowpox could be spread between humans as well as cows. Jenner's next test would be if the cowpox virus gave James immunity against smallpox. On July 1st of 1796, Edward Jenner obtained an infected smallpox pustule and scratched the virus filled pus into James' arm. This technique of placing a virus into a patient is called variolation. James Phipps did not develop smallpox within the
Every year, millions of animals are injured or killed in scientific experiments across the world. Those in favor of animal experimentation say they’re taking animals’ lives to save humans. But is it really necessary to subject animals to torturous conditions or painful experiments in the name of science? Is it ethical to destroy an animal’s life while simply testing lipstick or shampoo? Animal experimentation, like many of the issues we face today, is difficult to argue against, and just as hard to support, but it is necessary to continue this experimentation in order to advance human knowledge and to help save human lives.
Every year millions of animals are abused, injured, and hurt. It seems as if humans are not very concerned about animal rights according to these statistics.. Animal rights is the idea that animals should not have to suffer and be able to be in possession of their life. Some people are willing to sacrifice things such as certain brands of makeup or certain kinds of food to improve animal welfare. For many years animals have been experimented on and placed in factory farms. Factory farming is a method of producing food products where the factories value how much they produce and how much they profit over the welfare of the animals. These farms keep animals confined in small spaces and make the animals eat things they were not originally
Animals are used as a part of experimentations in order to accomplish new openings. A few individuals think that it is satisfactory, while others contend that it is not moral to sacrifice animals for science. Estimated, that fifty to one hundred million of animals are used for tests in the world. Despite the significance of experiments, the quantity of animals and purpose of research are not under any control. Animals testing should be banned under a few circumstances; we can enhance the situation by using alternative ways such as replacement, reduction, and refinement according to International Society for Applied Ethology.
This report is over human experiments conducted by various governments over several decades. The governments involved include, but are not limited to, the Nazis, the soviets and even America. Some of these experiments that were tested on these people were very disgusting and extremely cruel.
Rothman, D.J. (1987). Ethics and human experimentation. New England Journal of Medicine, 317: 1195- 9.
Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health” (“Alternatives to Animals”). Companies claim that this sort of cruelty will benefit the human population by testing the “safety” of the products, as they have been for hundreds of years, and although this may have been helpful in the past, scientists have discovered otherwise. “While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals tested on continues to increase, the United States still ranks 49th in the world in life expectancy and second worst in infant mortality in the developed world” (“Animal Testing Is”). This evidence shows that while we still continue to support and spend money on animal testing, it is not working as well as we thought.
“Over 1 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in U.S. labs” according to DoSomething.org. And although these animals may be considered protected under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) they are still able to be tortured and mistreated in labs. On top of all this, there is absolutely no guarantee that results and data collected from these procedures are accurate. Our anatomic builds are similar in ways but not at all interchangeable. Even though it has saved lives, animal experimentation should be banned because it is not a guarantee that these procedures are done pain free and humans and animals react differently to the medicines and chemicals used.
The deployment of animals for medical research has brought heated debates from both the proponents and opponents each holding to their views in a tight manner. Those who are in support of animal research argue that it has been constituting a vital element in the advancement of medical sciences throughout the world providing insights to various diseases, which have helped in the discovery and development of various medicines that have brought an improvement in the qualify of living of people. Such discoveries have gone so deep that but for them many would have died a premature death because no cure would have been found for the diseases that they were otherwise suffering. On the other hand, animal lovers and animal right extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also Cruel. Human kind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislations to put an end to using animals by the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the view of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....
Unethical experiments have occurred long before people considered it was wrong. The protagonist of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study ( Vollmann 1448 ).The reasons for the experiments were to understand, prevent, and treat disease, and often there is not a substitute for a human subject. This is true for study of illnesses such as depression, delusional states that manifest themselves partly by altering human subjectivity, and impairing cognitive functioning. Concluding, some experiments have the tendency to destroy the lives of the humans that have been experimented on.
Animal experimentation is contentious issue in today’s society that, whether it continue or should stop. Many animals such as monkey undergo painful suffering or even death as a result of scientific research for the sake of humans’ health. Among the animals monkeys are the main victims of the scientists’ experiments because of their human-like characteristics and physical process to humans. Monkeys’ similarities allow the scientists to test effectiveness of the new discovered drugs, food additives, and chemical and even cosmetics products. Although, such medical experimentations had helped scientists to produce vaccines, and medicines that are necessary for elimination of some deceases, but the test had negative medical effect on monkeys.