Animal Testing Ethics

Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. A study from ProCon.org stated that, “94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials.” This shows that testing on animals may not be as helpful as it may seem. It is not useful to test on animals when there still must be even more tests to make sure that the medical treatments are safe since the animal tests are not accurate. The tests need to be accurate to know that the medical treatment works well

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

For thousands of years animals have been used as research subjects, but with the advancement of science and society, animal experimentation has morphed into a controversial bioethics topic. Animal experimentation is the use of animals in scientific research. This experimentation ranges from testing pharmaceuticals on rats to measuring the elasticity of tendons in rabbits to implanting mechanical devices in calves. And while the FDA has dozens of guidelines to keep animal testing as ethical as possible, a strong opposition to animal research (particularly mammalian research) still exists.

Over the last couple hundred years, our world has expanded beyond its horizons and the new equipment and advanced technology has allowed humans to succeed in many areas, but has also damaged the basic ethics and morals in some of us. Today on television, we see the over dramatized body spray commercials or a famous celebrity advertising their favorite shampoo and stating its claims, but what most do not know is that a couple or couple hundred, animals were killed to approve, by law, of that product. This act is called animal testing, which is the method or experiment that forces an animal to go through any harm or distress (Thew). I do not agree with this practice simply because it harms innocent animals for products that we do not need

As I have progressed through this journey, I feel as though I have gained a much greater insight into an issue, which is of far bigger global concern than I had initially realised. The basis of this investigation was to examine the social and ethical perspectives on animal testing and within that the tendency for human beings to classify and categorise forms of life, placing themselves at the top of the ladder. Through the use of primary and secondary methodologies I have been able to appreciate many differing opinions, ranging from passionate objections to uncertainty and then those in full support of continuation.

“Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing.” ("Experiments on Animals: Overview.") Some believe that animal testing is futile, while others say it is beneficial to science. Testing cosmetic, medical, and chemical products on animals is unreliable, unnecessary, and inhumane.

The debate on whether animal testing should continue revolves around the morality of testing animals. It is understood that “[m]ost people agree that animals have at least some moral status – that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals”(Liou 2010). What debaters argue about is whether animals have a moral status that is paramount to that of humans; such as the capacity to suffer and to enjoy life. This is a topic discussed in “Consider the Lobster,” in which the author discusses whether or not the lobsters feel pain when being cooked (Wallace 60). It was found that “[s]upporters of this type of argument [, those who think that the two moral statuses are paramount,] frequently claim that granting animals less moral

More than 115 million animals are used each year for testing (Akhtar). The act of testing on live animals for the purpose of scientific research is called vivisection. According to a nationwide survey of biology educators commissioned by NAVS in 2014, the use of animals as dissection specimens in biology classrooms remains a prevalent practice in the United States, with 84% of pre-college biology educators reporting the use of dissection as a teaching tool. The use of vivisection is carried out in middle schools, high schools, and universities. Animals are also used in testing for cosmetics, tox screenings, and xenotransplantation, a process of transplanting organs or tissues between different species . Many creatures around the world are forced into a life in cage where they obliged to endure painful tests. Along with the pain caused by scientists, many of the drugs that prove to be successful in animals aren’t in humans. Aside from all, animals do have the right to not be harmed although the Animal Welfare Act doesn’t provide much protection. Our country’s law refuses to find it necessary to use alternative methods which are also obtainable. Animal testing should be outlawed due to animal rights, ethical issues, alternative ways and its unreliability.

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.

The British Medical Association stated that, in 2006, “At least 250,000 people are hospitalized every year as a result of adverse drug reactions… only one percent of adverse reactions are detected in trials” (Animal Aid). Most drugs with negative reactions in humans passed tests on animal models with no issues. When negative reactions to medical drugs caused by False positive results are tested again on animal models, researchers often find that they can not reproduce the effect the drug caused in humans in animal

Animal experimentation has been used for centuries for biomedical research. One of the earliest examples is Greek physicians such as Aristotle and Galen who conducted tests on animals to get a better understanding of humans and make advances in the field of science. This method of experimenting on animals is out of date in today’s advanced technological society. This discussion of using animal for experimentation has dominated societal conversations for many years now due to many reasons. This includes the fact that there are alternatives, it proves ineffective, and it violates federal law.

When people experiment on animals that is characterized to be very unethical for the safety of the animals being tested on. In that substance, a cosmetic company using animals such as rabbits to test the irritancy levels of its products eyes for the purposes of making nonirritating cosmetics for women who will use such products is by far unethical and wrong. Because treatment brings pain and discomfort to the animals in testing. I also support the moral idealism that “humans do not have the right to capture animals against their will and subject them to life-threatening experiments” (Neu, 2012). I feel that all animals should be given a full and healthy life and not be mistreated in any way. And using rabbits or any creatures for testing for

Pharmacological Research distributes forefront articles in biomedical sciences to cover an expansive scope of themes that advance the pharmacological field. We give a venue through which masters crosswise over orders can quickly trade data in wellbeing sciences that relates to present day pharmacological themes. The diary distributes articles on sub-atomic, biochemical, translational, and clinical examination (counting clinical trials); it is pleased with its quick production of acknowledged papers that contains a committed, quick acknowledgment and distribution track for prominent articles. A drug trial is an experimental study, or a composed test of solutions and new treatment choices including persistent and non-understanding human volunteers. Drug trials affirm whether drugs are protected and successful to present as new medications for a specific illness or condition.

Many experiments conducted result in failure for the examination and human lives. While some tests govern to success, the number of fails overpowers the number of accomplishments. For instance, according to the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes (PMC), more than 96% of animal Testing operations develop faults and end in failure. Convincingly contending that many scientists continue to use this alternative when it is not a reliable source. Moreover, human lives have been in jeopardy when consuming animal tested advanced drugs. For example, in 2006, according to The 2015 Lush Prize Supporting Animal Free Testing, “In 2006, six men took a drug (known as TGN1412) in a

Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US labs every year (Sharp). There are multiple alternatives than using lab animals, but labs still choose to use them. The lab animals are tortured for months or even years. Approximately 225 million animals are used for testing every year. Billions have been killed in the process. Isn’t it inhumane to use animals to test merchandise for humans? Many people say, “yes” to this question. However, scientists argue it is unavoidable and animal research can help save human lives. There are probable arguments for both sides. But the risk of using animals to test products for human use weighs an even greater risk than not using the animals. Alternatives are much more ethical. Even though humans can benefit from the testing, nevertheless, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products because the pain, suffering, and deaths of these animals are not worth the possible human benefits; just three of many examples are it is unethical, it is bad science, and it is wasteful.