Human Primates : The Appropriate Subjects Of Biomedical Research Essay

What makes a primate a primate? A primate is defined by its many incredible features. A primate is a mammal that has certain characteristics such as: flexible fingers and toes, opposable thumbs, flatter face than other mammals, eyes that face forward and spaced close together, large and complex cerebrum, and social animals. What makes a primate a primate is its characteristics. Some of the physical features primates are identified by is their teeth, snouts, eyes, ears, arms, legs, fingers, and toes. Human evolution is a big part of humans being primates, and having similar features and characteristics make humans to be considered to be a primate, but both humans and non-humans have differences.

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.

“Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and “Dignity” to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?”, by Ed Yong, is an article that explains the intentions of the Great Ape Project (GAP). The project demands a basic set of moral and legal rights for chimpanzees,gorillas, bonobos, and orangutans. Many countries have taken part of this project such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The message of the GAP is that the animals are not property, therefore they believe apes should not be used for experiment or entertainment. However, not everyone agrees with GAP’s rights-based approach. Frans de Waal, from Emory University believes that if we give rights to the apes, why not give rights to other animals such as monkeys, dogs, and rats? Singer says, “Speaking personally, I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals” and he also says, “All creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status.” In the EU, Jane Goodall wants experimentations on apes and all animals to end. Many people are in favor of the GAP

In the article, “Of Primates and Personhood: Will According Rights and ´Dignity´ to Nonhuman Organisms Halt Research?¨, written by Ed Yong, who explains the moral but unclear delma of granting Great Apes rights. Extending from Spain to the U.S., the Great Ape Project (GAP) fights for these basic sets of moral and legal rights for apes. The problem is that apes, although genetically similar to humans are still viewed as simple animals. Which makes the ability to give these non-human animals, human like rights unnecessary as it would to give rights to dogs or rats. The U.S. has also passes the Great Ape Protection Act, which stop any harmful experience to apes. Consequently also stopping any further understanding of underlying biological mechanisms,

They are very fast and can be able to run within short distances using the most minimal time. It takes less than 10 seconds to run within a distance of approximately 100 meters. While the animals move around they try to monitor the environment as quadrupedally and monitoring of the environment can be able to take as much as up to ten minutes in any case they have doubts of where they are, this alerts them of any predators. Consortship is a situation where the two animals would stay close to each other and monitor the movement and environment of each other. This is done as long as the animals are out in an environment that is not seen as being friendly. The patas can be seen to be less vocal and they move around in silence, they make certain noise only once when they have seen a predator. The noise or the sound takes just a few seconds as long as the danger is taken away

I have really enjoyed learning in this class and glad I took it because I found it to be very interesting. From learning all these different types of primates, from non-human to human primates, to even developing a better understanding of the evolution of primates and primate behavior. For my final paper, I will be going over and portraying the behavior of non-human primate and human primate. I will be comparing the primates behavior seen over the movies and literatures that we were assigned, to the understandings of evolution. Being able to learn and compare the behavior of non-human primate and the behavior of human primate, it can help further one understandings of how we are similar in physical and biological structures. According to the Wikipedia, “The primate lineage is thought to go back at least 65 million years ago”. (Wikipedia) With this one could say that the evolution of primates have been evolving for quite a while now, and even if we do not look like a non human primate we are similar than we think. The reading materials and the movies we had to watch for this class displayed the behaviors of non-human primate and human primate, some how differed. There are many question about evolution, and to how we were created? are there other reasons deeper than evolution? How much can we learn about evolution by just comparing the different behavior of the primates?

Non human primates’ social organization can provide useful information how human social evolution occurs. We will go over main points of how similar and different non human primates such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas’ society are compared to ours, humans.

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

In the article “Stop Brain Tests on Primates” discusses use of primates in cruel types of experiments. The article states that researchers use to study and test experiments on primates because they are closer to our own dna than any other animal. Although many other animal are used for testing should primates that can think and reason should they be used for experiments.

The study of primates has been a common field of study for a long time. The studies are carried out for different reasons but the common reason is trying to understand human beings better. Studies have revealed that the behavior of primates is similar to that of human beings on different aspects. Human beings and primates have a history of being related based on the evolution stories. The earliest human beings are believed to have been apes and evolved from there.

A rhesus monkey and human infants have many morally relevant differences. Therefore, it would be permissible to do use rhesus monkeys for an experiment but not human infants. Experimenting on either it might seem to be cruel in any type of situations, but is more than necessary. For example, the Experimental Reduction of Carcinoma in Rhesus Monkeys is a perfect example of were animal lay a role. Researchers do need to use something that represents human like characteristic and instead of using an infant the better more moral thing to do is use an animal.

This is a sensitive issue area in regards to research. There are many types of research that just are not feasible to do with human subjects; therefore the justification for non-human animals come into the experiment. Even though there are many benefits to using animals, many animal rights groups maintain strong opposition to using animals for research. This is why the APA has developed the Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE). It is the responsibility of CARE to audit that all ethics regarding animal usage is followed (“Committee on animal,” 2014). Due to the sensitivity of testing on animals the APA has developed very strict standards regarding usage of animals as subjects. They range from justification, housing of said animal, acquisition, and procedures. These requirements outline absolute necessity in order to reduce the unnecessary usage of animals in testing.

Scientists have been using animals to test products for years. Animals are not confirmed in being helpful for product or medical testing. Ethical affairs and scientific limitations are some of the concerns in the testing of animals. In a recent statement made by the Institute of Medicine, the chimpanzees were not reported as being a necessity. Animal testing is immoral, because of the medical products needed testing, animals act as test replicas to reveal negative impacts and flaws in the product. The cost of chimpanzees is high, the well-being of the animals is worthy, the testing is discredited, and the ethical thinking is imprecise.

My argument for the immorality of using animals as test subjects in biomedical research is predicated on several widely accepted, commonsense moral principles--principles that you no doubt already believe. These commonsense principles are so central to our conception of morality that any moral theory that conflicted with them would be rejected as unsatisfactory on reflective equilibrium grounds. Since any adequate moral view must cohere with these principles, we can appeal to these principles directly when making moral

Around the world, an estimated 115 million animals are used in various medical research facilities per year (“Animal Testing,” n.d.). The relationship of humans and animals have been entirely interdependent since early on. Traces of animal testing have dated back to as early as 500 B.C. Even today, numerous species of animals are used for investigation throughout the world. These animals include, but are not limited to, mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, birds and non-human primates such as monkeys and chimpanzees. Countless people display contradictory positions on animal practices; numerous individuals view animals as partners, while others use animals on behalf of enhancing medical practices and expanding experimental exploration. Prior research has revealed that there are a variety of explicit features that influence people to either aid or contradict the practice of using animals in medical research. Many people consider the kind of animal used, style of study being directed, and how the animals are treated in the experiment (Henry & Pulcino, 2009). Since animals have been universally tested in various fields of experimentation, the ideology of medical research has been a continuous debate within humans. This paper will present alternative positions pertaining to the topic of animal practice in medical research and conclude with a position that seems most permissible.