A Comparison Of Advocates And Adversaries Of Animal Research

Smith, Wesley J. “The Grim Good of Animal Research.” Scientific Research, edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948220/OVIC?u=scschools&sid=OVIC&xide9245e81. Accessed 26 Apr. 2018. Originally published in www.firstthing.com, 18 Oct.

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

There have been many studies and poles that look at the public perceptions on animal research. The Gallup survey on Values and Beliefs started collecting data here in the United States in 2001. They ask a simple question: Is medical testing on animals morally acceptable, or morally wrong? And in ten years they have watch the morally wrong numbers climb ten points. There are many reasons why this may be occurring, and one of the bigger drivers of that rise may be the increase in social media. A soapbox for those who want to be heard. Animal protection groups have, very successfully, utilized social media to spread their message. Celebrity endorsements of these groups also fuel the fire of their

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma Gandhi). Scientists have been using animals for biomedical research for centuries. They provide a source to get information scientists can not get without harming humans. A lot of debate is spread about whether it is good or bad. Animal experimentation is a controversial topic because it is helpful to humans, but it is also cruel and inhumane.

Ever since the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s, animal research has been under extreme fire for what they do. This is mainly due to the many changing perspectives on the relationship between humans and the other aspects of the world that are surrounding them. There are many main reasons for this change, but the main reason is the different ideas that surrounded the use and exploration of animals in laboratories is what is being brought into question.

Animal Research is topic that is highly debated by several people, especially those in the medical and the vet world. Why is this such a debatable topic to individuals? Many people consider animal research to cruel and inhumane, and others believe that it is for the greater good to help find cures for humans. Ron Karpati, a former pediatrician and who is now a medical researcher, agrees that animal research is used for the greater good even though it inflicts pain on animals. Karpati wrote an article called, “ I am the Enemy,” and in this article he states several points that prove his belief on animal research.

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all

Researchers treat animals right because they use them to uncover cures and treatment that humans can use. Scientist Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez stated, “that animals in research are treated “humanely and with dignity” (Garner, 2016). These two scientists reassured the reader that animals subjected to testing are treated with respect. They are not treated in bad testing conditions, which may harm the animals and manipulate the outcome of the test. In addition to these scientists claim, there are also laws protecting animals, such as “federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” (ProCon, 2017). Treating these animals with dignity is correct by the researchers because the animal is sacrificing his/her freedom to the outside world so it can be experiment on to find medical treatments and cures for

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

People often use animals for a lot of experiments even though most people think that is it wrong. People make up countless excuses to why it’s okay to do this. But it is not okay. Animal researchers and such agree with my opinion that using animals for tests that we as humans would never want to do, is bad and very hypocritical, yet unfortunately there are just as many scientists who say that it is completely fine and that there isn’t really much harm brought to the animals. Mind you, these scientists have apparently never owned a beloved pet close to their heart. The two essays, "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs" by Tom Regan and "Proud to be Speciesist" by Stephen Rose, talk about the issue of animal rights, but are written on completely opposing

Asking just about any animal rights activists on the thoughts of animal testing, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of them would address crucial flaws in many of the laws in regards to animals and how animals are supposedly “protected” by these laws. Trained scientists and researchers take on the key role of testing on animals in laboratories and facilities throughout the world, using the excuse that we are expanding knowledge and furthering medical research. In the United States alone, there are very few laws truly protecting animals from the unnecessary amounts of suffering the research forces upon them with many exceptions. Additionally, in reference to the scientists who perform these tests, the author of the article,

Cohen argues that humans may morally use animals for biomedical research, the study of biological processes and disease, because animals lack rights. He defines rights as moral claims that one human can hold against another, which are bound in both law as well as in comprehension of right and wrong. As animals lack self-conscious placement in a higher ethical order with the ability to weigh needs of self against the needs of others, they therefore lack the ability to have rights. (Cohen 1986: p. 215) To support the morality of animal research, I will show how it has led to many successful treatments of disease in humans, due to the common physiology that we share with other animals. Furthermore, I will argue that the pain caused on research

In this essay I will outline and defend the argument for complete abolition of the use of animals in biomedical research. I will ultimately agree with Tom Regan’s claim that “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources.” I will describe DeGrazia’s and Carruthers’ important objections to Regan’s claim as well as Regan and Singer’s responses. I will show that none of the objections overcomes Regan’s central argument.

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that

Whether animal experimentation is justified or not has been undecided for many decades. Many years back, the debate was carried out by animal rights groups which were led by the Cambridge University to get rid of its plan for a primate research in 2004. Since this debate, many supporters have become more confident in speaking out what they believe and getting their points across to people.