Article 4
Article 4 is Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which emphasized reduction, refinement, and replacement of animal use, principles, many scientists referred to the three R’s. These principles encouraged researchers to work to cut down the figure of animals utilized in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible. The figure of animals utilized in research and testing has continued to increase, raising serious ethical and scientific publications. Furthermore, while the three R’s capture crucially important concepts, they do not adequately reflect the substantial developments in our new knowledge about the cognitive and emotional capabilities of animals, the individual interests of animals, or an updated understanding of the possible damages linked to animal research.
In addition, serious doubts of the strength of animal testing and research in predicting anticipated outcomes. The three R’s serve as the cornerstone for guidelines. Whether researchers, review panels, and funders fully and adequately implemented the three R’s, are the varying cultural perspectives around the situation of animals in order. For instance, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act excludes purpose-bred birds, rats, or mice, which contain more than 90% of animals
As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.
Imagine being poked and prodded with a needle, all to test for a new drug against
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
Animal testing, also known as animal research or experimentation refers to the use of non-human animals to conduct experiments which seek to control certain variables that have the potential to impact the biological systems or behaviors under study. The most commonly used animals are usually mice, cats, rats, dogs and primates. More than 20 million animals are usually subjected to food, drugs, chemical and cosmetic testing each year in the United States alone (Sharma et al, p.1). These animals usually suffer and die in the cruelest of ways despite the fact that there exist more modern non-animal tests which have been found out to save time, money and with more educational value. This essay explains why animal testing is bad and provides
The testing of animals in scientific and commercial research has been debated for many years. Some people view animals as companions or part of the family, but others think of them as a way to advance medicine by providing researchers with a means to develop better medical techniques, discovering vaccines, and helping to find a cure for a disease. Regardless of how a person may view animals, they are worthy of better protection by our government and us as a society. Although some animal testing has been successful, there are research alternatives that could eliminate the pain, suffering, and deaths that animals endure in scientific research. Therefore, animals should not be used in scientific research
In history, animal experimentation has played a significant important role in leading to new discoveries and human benefit. However, what many people tend to forget are the numbers of animal subjects that have suffered serious harm during the process of experimentation. Each day across America innocent animals are used as test subjects for products that have little to no relevance importance. Animal testing has had many negative issues arise in society in a negative way. Debating over the animal rights movement has raised many questions and concerns for years. There is an ongoing controversy regarding if companies should stop testing their products on animals. Although animal research has been the cause of many medical breakthroughs, is it morally and ethically right to put animals in these kinds of situations? This is one of the underlying questions that must be solved before it is too late. When considering how truly reliable the results of animal test are, and the expense of testing will help bring new light to the problem. By simply passing a policy will not only address this issue, will help better products and medicine in the future.
For decades, the question of ethics in using humans and animals for research has been a constant battle in the fields of science, medicine, and even cosmetics. According to the Animal Welfare Association, approximately 19,500,000 animals - including mice, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and frogs - are killed yearly on average due to research. Although more than 50% of adults in the United States are opposed to animal testing, many popular companies like Maybelline, Vaseline, Dove, and Windex choose to remain in the shadow of animal cruelty and use animals as expendable lab equipment.
The aim of this presentation is to highlight why animals research exists in the field of psychobiology and psychology. Firstly, an explanation of the benefits of conducting animal research, with research examples targeted at the central nervous system (CNS). Then, the focus is to highlight the ethical issues surrounding animal research, such as cruelty to animals and their rights. Thirdly we will be looking at the extent to which animal research has increased our understanding of human psychology. This is then followed by a brief summary of the main points covered in the presentation.
Imagine being poked and prodded with a needle, all to test for a new drug against
Animal testing dates back all the way to Greek physician scientists like Aristotle and Erasistratus. Greek scientist conducted experiments to understand the anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology just like our scientists do today. The moral ethics of animal testing has always been questioned, but many cures and treatments have been found due to animal testing discoveries. Animal testing is necessary for humankind 's overall well being, as well as today 's society 's advancement to further the knowledge of the medical field.
Animals used in laboratories dates as far back as the 17th century (Unknown, 2015)6. When I first read this statistic, it was surprising because the amount of time testing has been around really makes one think about the advancements made because of that. Due to the amount of time animal testing has been around, two general groups have formed in response to this. The people advocating for it are commonly part of the science community or anyone that supports what science hopes to accomplish and then there is the community of people who would not want animals to have to endure the pain from being tested throughout their entire lives. In this paper I will be presenting two perspectives on the topic regarding the use of animals in laboratories. The first perspective will show how animal testing is extremely beneficial to the world of scientific research as well as to the world in general. While the second perspective will show how the animal rights activists believe that the animals being tested on should not be forced to go through painful testing procedures.
Animal testing has been a controversial topic for discussion for centuries. Major conflicting concerns that include, but are not limited to the morals and values of society today, are in my opinion where these issues stem from. For instance, some people seem to believe that by using animals for testing and experimentation is unethical and violating animals rights. Nonetheless, a cosmetic company using rabbits to test the irritancy levels of it’s products eyes for the purposes of making nonirritating cosmetics for women who will use such products in my opinion, is necessary for human safety and usage. I understand that the testing process may be painful to the rabbits, and understand why some may believe this is an act of animal abuse or
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.
There are many debates about whether or not animals such as mice and rats should be experimented on. The organization Psychologist for the Ethical Treatment of Animals believes in observing animals instead of experimenting on them (Meyer). Another known organization is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). An organization that is in favor of animal experimentation is called Pro-Test and is located in the United Kingdom (UK). This organization thinks that experimenting on animals may help humans. About 95% of animals are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act like reptiles, birds and mice (“Animal Testing”). Experimentation on animals should not be permitted in any country, including the United States, because it is cruel and inhumane, because we have developed new technology that can replace these experiments, and because sometimes the results that are found are not directly relevant to humans.