Ethical Issues Surrounding Animal Research

Although animal experimentation has been around for centuries, the ethical revival of realization on the moral status of animals began in the 1970’s. This problem was a few among many that had been quietly hidden for years until the 1970’s.

Schizophrenia is a complex and highly debilitating mental illness that we are currently unable to treat in any way that guarantees success or return to previous function. It affects around 1% of the population and is associated with a thirteen-fold increase in the likelihood of suicide, so its effective control is paramount (Gogos et al., 2015). There have been several hypotheses as to the cause of schizophrenia. Many link genetic and environmental factors, and dysregulations of neurotransmitters dopamine, glutamate, and serotonin (Egbujo, Sinclair, & Hahn, 2016). The dopamine hypothesis currently suggests that hyperactive dopamine transmission in the basal ganglia leads to psychosis and underactive dopamine transmission in the prefrontal

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

Furthermore Parkinson’s disease, which is associated with a depletion of dopamine display behaviours characteristic of schizophrenia when given too much L-DOPA, a dopamine stimulant (Gershon, Angrist, and Shopsin, 1977 as cited in Kalat, 1992). In addition if schizophrenics are given drugs such as L-DOPA their symptoms are heightened. (Kalat, 1992).

Animal testing is used frequently among the field of research to identify new cures of the modern science field to help cure disease, find cures, or simply identify variables in a theory. Yet, it is brought to question: is it morally wrong to test another living organism that is not a human being? Billions of animals lose their lives each year due to animal testing. Animals should be attributed to help enhance the fields of Psychological Research as long the experiments have a higher gain value than the level of cruelty that is imposed upon the animals that are being used for testing. Although the line between what is considered an effective research or pain caused for human financial benefit; there are two mindsets that are pointed out to continue animal research: the scientific view and the ethical view. But, most importantly to identify the purposes of a choice done by ethical egoism and contractarianism to benefit individuals financially and instead have utilitarianism content of moral norms to use on the animal research field.

The animal experimentation is very difficult issue with a lot of people feeling very strongly of it, we are use the animals for the experimentation in different way, one of most big problem is for test the cosmetics, the images of animals with things put in their eyes for so we are able to look a bit better make many people very angry. Is it necessary?

When I first started to contemplate my position on this topic I hadn’t really realized the magnitude or the amount of controversy that surrounds animal research and testing. When I started to search for content to include in my paper I read many articles on the subject and I was amazed to find that being involved in this field can be a dangerous job. In an article titled Defending Animal Research I was shocked to read that some extremist groups are willing to harm property and human beings in order to get their point across. It was noted that since 1990-2012 that there have been 220 attacks on individual’s who participate in animal research studies. This number has increased from 9% to 46% over this time period. I understand and respect the

Where would we be without antibiotics or vaccines? The medical advances made to overcome medical obstacles were a massive impact in improving public health and medical research. Though there are medical general practitioners that have concerns about reliability of the animal data,” it is good scientific practice to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism and avoid over-reliance on any one set of data or research method”(Festing, Wilkinson, 2007). Some of the most impactful events that occurred with animal researching lead to the development of vaccines, antibiotics, diabetes research and organ transplants which includes the heart valve and the kidney.

Howes, O. M. (2015). Glutamate and dopamine in schizophrenia: An update for the 21 st century. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 29, 97-115 .

The key function of antipsychotic drugs as recognised by various researchers, is the significant interference with brain dopamine function. This is underpinned by the hypothesis that symptoms of schizophrenia are produced from increased activity of the neurotransmitter dopamine. This essay, therefore discusses and examines the function and mode of action of these antipsychotics drugs with a view to critically identifying whether schizophrenia is a disorder of dopamine function.

Do animals feel pain? Do they suffer when in distress? Almost all animal research is conducted for better understanding of human diseases and illnesses, rarely are animals used for the benefits of animals. Is the pain felt by animals worth the advances in human understandings? I will discuss what animals are used for, why they are used, the ethical dilemma of animal research, laws relevant to the study of animal experimentation and my personal stance on the matter.

Dopamine hypothesis. This theory states that the hyperfunction of brain D2 synapses are linked to the positive symptoms of schizophrenia, from observations that antipsychotics, such as Chlorpromazine, have antagonistic effects at dopamine receptors (Carlsson & Lindqvist, 1963). Contrastingly stimulants that release dopamine can induce positive symptoms (Lieberman & Alvir, 1987). To be clear this hypothesis states that dopamine is not a cause, but rather the by-product of the previously mentioned neurobiochemical dysfunction.

The Dopamine Model (DM) has been around since the twentieth century (Preston, O’Neal and Talaga, 2017). The model believes that the cause of schizophrenia symptoms is from abnormal dopamine in the brain (Preston, et al., 2017). The premise is based off two observations. The first one is that antipsychotic drugs are able to bind and block the dopamine receptors (Preston, O’Neal, et al., 2017). The second observation is that the antipsychotic drugs increases dopamine which create paranoid schizophrenia symptoms (Preston, et al., 2017).

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.

It seems as though people are often so sure of their own belief of what is right and wrong that they stop challenging themselves on their own beliefs. From a scientific perspective this does not seem to be a logical progression. In order to learn we must continue to question the things that we believe in order to understand where our beliefs truly lie. Much like scientific theories that cannot be proven have to continually be tested in order to prove their validity, we must also constantly challenge our own beliefs to understand their legitimacy.