Animal Experimentation Is Fundamental For Medical Advancement And Cancer Research

Every day, animals such as rabbits, chimpanzees, and mice take part of medical experimentation. “Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. The United States and Gabon are the only two countries that allow experimentation on chimpanzees.” (The Jane Goodall Institute of Canada). What people don’t understand is that these animals contribute to medical discoveries regarding human health. Animals should be used for medical experimentation because they contribute to many cures and treatments that have saved lives, their genetic material appears to be similar to those of humans, they are similar to human beings in many ways, animals are the only organisms other than humans who we can experiment on, and the animals themselves benefit from the result of animal testing.

We often see animal testing as an inhumane act of cruelty, however, we do not recognize the benefits and reasoning behind it all. After carefully studying the reasoning behind animals in medical research, I was appalled by the numerous beneficial outcomes. Research professionals tells us “Medical testing on animals has provided humans with an understanding of how body reacts to certain medications, diseases, or vaccines (animalresearch.info).” Without conducting such research, humans would have no further advancements in medicine, nor any knowledge of their effects. Have you ever noticed the prominence of commercials advertising a new medication? Whether it was a new birth control, blood thinner, or vaccine, more than likely, an animal was used to test the medicine. Animal Smart researchers explains how “Vaccines such as smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria and tetanus would have taken much longer to develop without the use of animal research (animal smart). Such diseases would have taken the lives of many young children and adults if there were no

As Cohen’s argument progresses, he underlines the reasoning as to why using animals in biomedical research is morally permitted. Considering animals do not retain rights, “In conducting research on animal subjects, therefore, we do not violate their rights, because they have none to violate” (Cohen, pg.589). Likewise, Cohen depicts that we should not allow the expectation of moral equality for animals to impose on the advancement of biomedical research, due to the fact that, this form of research maximizes safety and the life span of human beings. For the reason, the benefits biomedical research provides to human beings surpasses any proposed obligation to animals. In contradiction, Singer argues experimentation on animal’s results in speciesim.

Have you ever looked into the eyes of an innocent animal? How much harm can they do to you? Picture yourself being this helpless animal; you are being put into different rooms for horrific experiments. Scientists are holding you down carelessly, injecting unknown chemicals into your system, and causing nothing but pain and distress. Then you ask yourself, what did I do to end up in here? When you look around, there are many others just like you. You feel as if your life is insignificant. The sad truth is that, Animal Experimentation (AE) is used for human benefit only, not caring that these harmless animals have feelings just like the rest of us. Testing cosmetics, drugs, and dangerous treatments on animals is unfair. Although animal testing has improved medical progress, experimenting on an animal should be prohibited because animals react differently than humans, the costs of these experiments are outrageous, and it is unethical.

Experimentation is a vital aspect of all sciences, as it validates hypothesis and furthers scientific development. However, many believe that science crosses the line when animals become subjected to experimentation as a way to further research. This is a controversial topic, as it examines what to us, as humans, is more important, morality or science? These animals are forced to endure pain and suffering, in an attempt to prolong and ease the lives of humans. Animal vivisection is unethical, and there are alternatives that can be utilized, therefore, it should be lessened, and ultimately eradicated.

Animal research has led to numerous improvements for the quality of life in humans and other animals. The humane treatment of animals requires that if there is an alternative way of getting the same results, without using animals, then that should be done. Reducing the number of animals used for research would result in an increase in humans being used for research; therefore, it is not reasonable to decrease the number of test animals. Humans cannot justify an objection to killing an animal involved in a biomedical investigation if they are willing to eat animals. The killing of an animal to meet the needs of human beings is judged as reasonable by most people. The enormous amount of benefits to human beings has made biomedical experimentation on animals justifiable. Non-human animals have non-negligible moral worth. Causing and animal to go through excruciating pain to bring a tinge of pleasure to a human is wrong. Believing there is a moral difference between evil we do and evil we do not prevent must be rejected to make the researchers’ calculations implausible. It is believed that perpetrating and evil is worse than permitting an

Animals have been a part of scientific experimentation since the time of the Ancient Greeks (Hajar, 2011). However, the ethics behind animal experimentation has been a topic of debate during recent years. Some argue that animal testing is extremely important in making progress within the field of human medicine. Others would express beliefs in the complete opposite viewpoint, arguing that there are more beneficial methods in which experimentation can be executed without the suffering of animals. This paper will argue against the use of experimental procedures in animals due to the poor generalizability of the results that are obtained in such experiments.

Throughout history animals have been used for biomedical research and commercial testing, but has recently become severely criticized and banned in multiple countries. Millions of animals are locked inside cages across the nation waiting in fear of what next painful procedure they must go through. Determining whether the act is morally acceptable or not has been up for debate since 500 BC when philosophers Aristotle and Bentham shared their viewpoints. Aristotle believed that animals were below humans and therefore could be used for human sake, while Bentham believed that both animals and humans have rights that shall be considered. The topic of animal testing typically arouses emotion and is two sided. While analyzing this topic, I will reference

For centuries, the ethics of animal experimentation in the biomedical field have been questioned. Do the benefits of animals used in research outweigh the pain the animals endure? Animal rights activists will argue there are new alternatives that there are more accurate than animal testing. The success of trials on animals, has led to the continued use by scientists within the medical field. Additionally, testing on animals instead of humans puts humans out of harms way. The first Animal Cruelty Act was created in 1835 to regulate the use of animals for scientific purposes. According to Franco (2013), the “Enactment of the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, remains the only known legislation to regulate animal experiments for nearly 50 years.” Even so, there will continue to be two sides of animal research, one side believes, without animal research there would not be the medical advancements present to this day. On the other hand, the use of animal research is unethical and the finding of new alternatives may also be even more beneficial than animal testing. Therefore, the medical field should either seek alternatives to animal research or the methods are refined to reduce the unethical treatment towards the animals as subjects.

Animal experimentation has been a big controversial topic for several years, breakthroughs in medicine have happened because of animal experimentation. Animal experimentation is unethical. Also animals are being used in biomedical experiments, the business is highly unethical in all of the rules it breaks, and morals codes (Peggs, 2015). Additionally a study conducted by Beauchamp and colleges (2015) shows the inefficiency of animal experimentations in helping humans through misleading findings, it provides false data in the makings of some vaccines and treatments. Alternatives to animal models are being tested; they show that with the advancement in alternative models, the need for animals decreases (Doke, 2015).

Thanks to animal research, many diseases that once killed millions of people are now either treatable or curable. Animal testing has not only benefit humans, but animals as well. Some animal testing has lead to life saving and life extending treatments for many of the animals used for testing. A complete alternative to animal testing has yet to be discovered.

Every year, millions of animals suffer through painful and unnecessary tests. Animals in laboratories all over the world live lives of deprivation, pain, isolation, and torture. Even though vast studies show that animal experimentation often lacks validity, leading to harmful human reactions, we still continue to use this method of experimentation, while many other less-expensive and more beneficial alternatives exist. Going beyond the issue of animal experimentation being morally wrong, this form of research is also hindering medical progress. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, people mistakenly believe that this immoral and unscientific method of experimentation is

For centuries, the ethics of animal experimentation in the biomedical field have been questioned. The primary concern is whether the animals used in research outweigh the pain the animals endure. Animal rights activists will argue that there are new alternatives, which are more accurate than animal testing. The success of animal trials has continued the use by scientists within the medical field. Additionally, testing on animals eliminate harm to humans. The first Animal Cruelty Act was created in 1835 to regulate the use of animals for scientific purposes (Franco, 2013). According to Franco (2013, p. 256). the “enactment of the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act remains the only known legislation to regulate animal experiments for nearly 50 years.” Even so, there will continue to be two sides of animal research. One side believes, without animal research there would not be the medical advancements and on the other hand, the use of animal research is unethical. Finding new alternatives may also be even more beneficial than animal testing. The medical field should seek alternatives to animal research or the methods are refined to reduce unethical.

A lot has been discovered by experimenting on animals in order to find ways humans to fight against various diseases and other medical problems. The earliest writings on animal experimentation have been found as early as 500 B.C in Greece; where animals have been operated on to determine the anatomy of the human body and other medical reasons. It is estimated that 26 million animals are used for animal testing every year in the U. S alone in order for to conduct research. The need of further suffering of animals is now unnecessary because of our understanding of sciences and technology is far more advanced to allow the use of alternative ways to accomplish similar if not better results in medical research. People would say that

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.