Ethical Considerations Regarding Animal Research

Throughout history, animal testing has played an important role in leading to new discoveries and human benefit. However, what many people forget are the great numbers of animals that have suffered serious harm during the process of animal testing. Animal testing is the use of animals in biological, medical, and psychological studies. The development and enhancement of medical research has been based on the testing of animals. There are many questions being asked if animal research is good or not or if the benefit for us is way greater the abuse of animals. Doing tests on animals can help find ways to cure diseases, but testing on them is wrong. Although we want to find cures for diseases to help many people, testing on animals not only

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.

Animals have been treated immorally since the beginning of time, this is shown by hunting, farming, trapping, testing of products and biomedical research etc. As humans, majority of us claim animals as our resources as we use them for eating, making clothing, (leather and fur jackets, shoes) working animals, as a means of transport, animal testing etc. In this essay I will discuss the use of animals in biomedical research and state why some believe it is morally justified. I will then present an objection to argue why biomedical research is morally unjustified and why I believe this. I will write this essay using resources from Tom Regan 's, “The case for animal rights”, David DeGrazia’s, “The ethics of animal research: what are the prospects for agreement?’, Baruch A. Brody’s, “Defending animal research: An international perspective” and Peter Singer’s, “Animal Liberation at 30”. I will then come to my own conclusion based on the different perspectives from the above philosophers and by using my own knowledge on the issue.

Some of the earliest records on animal testing date back to ancient Greek philosophers and physicians such as Aristotle (1). Since then, the use of animals in experimentation has grown tremendously and has evolved into an indispensable arm of biology. Whether it be to test the effects of various chemicals on living organisms or developing a model of a disease for future study, biology makes ample use of model organisms for a variety of purposes and without their implementation many of the medical advancements we enjoy today would not exist. Despite their deep and widespread historical use, the ethical considerations of using these animals is still a highly debated topic around the world. This essay will argue that animal use is vital to the advancement of biology and that ample ethical standards are in place to ensure they receive the

According to The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, published by William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959, there are 3 important principles when it comes to animal testing and research. These principles: reduction, refinement, and replacement are typically known as the “3 R’s.” Reduction is meant to minimize the number of animal used in experimental procedures, refinement aims to limit the animal’s exposure to pain, and replacement is designed to use non-animal options whenever possible. While the problem with animal testing is constantly brought to people’s attention, the number of animals used for research is still increasing to this day. It is questionable whether these principles sufficiently reflect the development in our knowledge about animals and their emotional capabilities, the interest of these animals, or the harm that corresponds. It also raises serious questions about the success rate of the predicted outcomes of animal testing.

In the field of scientific research, animal subjects have become a primary source of medical testing. Investigating the effects of these procedures and chemical experiments to generate evidential conclusions is widely disputed by opposing audiences today. Advocates propose the necessity of animal usage in scientific testing for the advancement of human welfare, while critics argue on behalf of the rights available to such animals used in these procedures. Despite the controversial debates and publications written about this topic, the harsh realities of its practice continue to linger. A statistic often supplemented to the context of this issue, reported by the nonprofit organization PETA, says “More than 100

Animal Experimentation has a long history for the use of humankind and animals are being used in a large number to study and develop drugs for the diseases that human beings suffer from. “Between 17 million and 22 million animals are estimated to be used annually in the United States in research, education, and testing and about 85 percent of these are rats and mice, and less than 2 percent are cats, dogs, and nonhuman primates (Office of Technology Assessment, 1986)” (National, R. C. S. 1988, p. 18).

Humanity has a long history of experimentations on animals, especially in the medical and cosmetic field. “Each year, 26 million animals in the United States are used for animal testing” (United States Department of Agriculture). Many people argue that humanity would not be where it is today if people did not rely on animal testing. However, many other people believe that animal experimentation is not necessary and leads to the suffering and death of millions of animals. People on both sides debate whether animal testing should be carried out at all. Nevertheless, despite the belief that animal testing is beneficial, testing animals is actually immoral and should be abandoned.

The debate about using animals for medical testing has been raging for years. The struggle always seems to be between extremist animal rights activists who believe that animals should never be used for research, and scientists who believe that any use of animals is acceptable. There are a growing number who argue that there must be a reasonable middle ground. I contend that there must be a significant decrease in the number of animals used by humans to further human goals. I will give a historical account of animal use, provide some statistics about animal use, present some arguments against the use of animals and present Singer's view

many testing animals suffer and die. But others do not agree and support the fact

Every year, thousands of animals are forced to undergo multiple experiments and procedures in laboratories for the sake of testing new products or for scientific purposes. Some issues that are in support of testing on lab animals include its contribution to many life-saving cures and treatments, allows to test on a living body system, are appropriate research subjects due to their similarity to human subjects, animals do not have human rights, allows for human products to be tested for safety, religious beliefs that entitle humans to have dominion over all animals, and this method of testing is a small price to pay for advancing medical progress. According to a study done by the California Biomedical Research Association, “…nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. We have made significant progress against diseases such as polio, smallpox, cancer, heart diseases, and diabetes among many, thanks to animals.” Allowing scientists to do their lab research on animals enables them to explore new ways to cure diseases or develop safer products for humans to use. Some values that are in support of animal testing include safety, quality of life, education, and health.

I believe it is ethical to use animals for testing as long as scientists decrease their suffering as much as possible. Animals testing allows humans to receive many benefits that can also have direct effects on animals themselves. The fact that many vaccines were tested on animals has saved not only a substantial amount of human lives, but animal lives as well. Nevertheless, it is humans’ responsibility to honor and fight for their lives as if they were because after all, they have helped us to develop our technological world. An example of a test where humans did not honor the life of animals is the following: in the early 1950s, the Soviet Union started launching their first rockets. For the initial tests, they used mice, rats and, rabbits

Moreover, we can adopt cruelty-free product there are better ways to ensure product safety. Body shop for an example is a franchise in against animal testing for cosmetic, uses natural ingredients which are both animal and human-friendly which needs no animals to test on. According to the body shop, "animal testing is cruel, irrelevant and unnecessary" (animal testing and cosmetic 1988)

he ethical issue of animal testing for medical testing is not new, for example the majority of the common vaccines were developed because medical research that utilized animal testing. Many philosophers have attempted to explain the rights of animals and some wrote on the lack of inherent rights. This issue is difficult because animals can’t speak for themselves but humans do have a place to play in the fight for animal rights. I will apply the principle of utility along with the moral theories of equality and speciesism in order show that animal testing for medical research is not an ethical practice.

Animal Research is a very controversial topic of discussion in that both advocates and antagonists share views that are both morally sound; as well as respective advocates sharing views that stand on seemingly less solid ground. Animal research, simply put, is the research of a non-human animal to expand a scientific knowledge base, or to aid in answering questions to specific scientific problems. It is not helpful that the topic of animal research is brimming with myths and misinformation; both sides of the argument in a vicious battle to obtain more supporters for their side of the argument by any means necessary. My hopes in providing this information is to have a completely un-biased approach in delving into this heated