Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should animals be used for research
Ethical issue of animal experiments
Should animals be used for research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Should animals be used for research
The moral status of animals is an issue of much debate in Science. According to The Royal Society, the oldest scientific academy nowadays, it would have been impossible for science and medicine to develop so without animal research (“The Use of Non-Human Animals in Research”, 2004). Nevertheless, do the human medical benefits really justify the animal suffering in animal research? If so, what should are the possible considerations and limitations related to the matter? It appears to be a challenge to find common ground concerning the above questions. This paper will first present the current guidelines of animal research, and what is being done to help preserve the suffering and health animals as much as possible. In order to have a full insight on the matter, it is also needed to present the main methods of animal research. Scientists have used animals in many research projects or operations. Not every animal experiment carries the risk of physical or mental stress to the animal. The purpose is to eventually build on the existing instruments, and identify the concern of the moral status of animals as and additional tool to evaluate the appropriate limitations of animal research.
Types of Animal Research
The range of applied animal research varies from simple observational studies, up to drug testing or dissections. Therefore, it is important to differentiate between the circumstantial procedures that are carried on animal research. Considering the above, it will be easier to understand the pivotal objections about animal experimentation and how they can vary from situation to situation. This differentiation will help to set the limitations of animal research and identify the most problematic issues. Saying that animal res...
... middle of paper ...
...e?. Southern Journal Of Philosophy, 46(2), 181-198.
Gruen, L. (2010, September 13). The Moral Status of Animals. In Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy . Retrieved November 1, 2013
Regan, T. (1997). The Rights of Humans and Other Animals. Ethics And Behavior, 7(2), 103-111.
Rowan, A. N. (1997, February). The Benefits and Ethics of Animal Research. In Indiana University. Retrieved November 1, 2013
Ryan, T. (2007). Creatures Like Us?: A Relational Approach to the Moral Status of Animals. Animals Today, 15(1), 21.
Snowdon, C. T. (n.d.). Significance of Animal Behavior Research. In California State University . Retrieved November 1, 2013
The Use of Non-human Animals in Research . (2004, February 27). In The Royal Society . Retrieved November 1, 2013
UK Parliament . (2002). Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations . In Parliament.uk . Retrieved November 1, 2013
The information that animals have provided scientists over the past decades has changed society, and is still changing society for the better. Millions of lives have been saved with the use of animal testing and many more will be saved with continued research. However, there are many who dismiss this monumental achievement completely and oppose the use of animals in laboratory research. Though many find this practice to be
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Have you ever seen a stray animal on the side of the road and thought nothing of it? It is actions like that and others that continue to make this planet a cruel place for domestic animals to live. Many domestic animals are not created to destroy or harm anyone or anything. They are meant to be surrounded by loving caring humans who want to have a mutually beneficial relationship better them. Sadly, these animals are taken into shelters or pounds and if not claimed or adopted they are euthanized or become test subjects. According to PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, “each year, more than 100 million animals are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical,
Historically, the use of animals for experimental purposes dates back to early Greek physician-scientists. Aristotle and Galen both conducted experiments on animals in an effort to contribute to our understanding of science and medicine.1 Claude Bernard later established animal experimentation as part of the scientific method. Known as the father of physiology, Bernard stated that “experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree.”1 Bernard’s work strongly influenced the use of animals in biomedical research, which has become a common, and often required, practice today. The American Medical Association (AMA)...
Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation Animal experimentation sends a different message to everyone. The two sides are made of those who think animal testing is beneficial for life and those who think it is unethical and wrong. Those who find these tests to be beneficial are consist of researchers, scientists, and other observers. People and groups who perceive these tests to be cruel and unethical, consist of animal rights activists and organizations that fight for animals rights, such as PETA and ASPCA. Though there are many differences between the two sides, there are also a few similarities.
PETA states that, since before the 1920’s there has been animal experimentation. Not until President Lyndon Johnson signed the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (LAWA) in 1966, animals in the United States had no protection in laboratories, circuses, and zoos over breeding, transportation, housing, feeding, and veterinary care. The LAWA is now called the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). (Williams, and DeMello)
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.
Hills, Alison. "Do animals have right?" In Chapter 13: Science and Suffering, by Alison Hills, 199-218. Cambridge: Icon, 2005.
In modern society, animal experimentation has triggered a controversy; consequently, vast amount of protests have been initiated by the animal rights community. Although these organizations have successfully broadcast their concerns toward animal experimentation, its application continues to survive. Sally Driscoll and Laura Finley inform that there remain fifty million to one-hundred million animals that experience testing or experimentation throughout the world on a yearly basis. But despite opposition, animal experimentation, the use of experiments on animals in order to observe the effects an unknown substance has on living creatures, serves multiple purposes. Those particular purposes are: research of the living body, the testing of products, and the advancement of medicine.
vivisection Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical? “It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.” Dr. Simmonds, a veterinarian who specializes in the care of laboratory animals, is one of many who believe that animal testing is an ethical practice.
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims of experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical improvements have helped many people be able to enjoy life, but some people still believe that animal research is mean and avoidable .... ... middle of paper ... ...
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....
Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.
It has long been debated as to whether it is ethical to use animals for experimentation. When considering whether animal research is ethically acceptable or not two main concerns must be raised. The first issue is whether it is absolutely necessary to use animals in order to acquire information that may contribute to the improvement of people’s health and well-being. The second issue is whether the use of animals is defendable on a moral ground.