Medical Research On Animal Research

“It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.”

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

Ever since the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s, animal research has been under extreme fire for what they do. This is mainly due to the many changing perspectives on the relationship between humans and the other aspects of the world that are surrounding them. There are many main reasons for this change, but the main reason is the different ideas that surrounded the use and exploration of animals in laboratories is what is being brought into question.

Animal Research is topic that is highly debated by several people, especially those in the medical and the vet world. Why is this such a debatable topic to individuals? Many people consider animal research to cruel and inhumane, and others believe that it is for the greater good to help find cures for humans. Ron Karpati, a former pediatrician and who is now a medical researcher, agrees that animal research is used for the greater good even though it inflicts pain on animals. Karpati wrote an article called, “ I am the Enemy,” and in this article he states several points that prove his belief on animal research.

Their main claim conveyed is animals “will continue to be necessary as researchers seek to alleviate existing ailments and respond to the emergence of new disease” (Botting and Morrison 1). They state that animal research has aided in providing cures and medicines for several diseases and life threatening illnesses’. The authors acknowledge claims made for the opposing viewpoint, such as “the alleged differences between species…that supposedly render animal experiments redundant or misleading” (Botting and Morrison 17). They counterattack each of the claims with providing valid evidence to justify their reasoning. They begin the article by providing information on the issue and move toward the positive effects it has had over the years. They rely heavily on several studies and experimentations to defend their claim. Therefore the dominant appeal is logos because it refers to several studies and experiments that have contributed to the world of medicine. The authors cite a study that affirms that “Experiments using animals have played a crucial role in the development of modern medical treatments” (Botting and Morrison 1). Pathos was used in helping make the article more effective. It was able to prove that the results are not only for that one specific use, but the overall idea. The article was strengthened with its use of deductive reasoning since it develops a conclusion from the information and facts listed. It follows a classical model since it has an introduction, information, evidence, and a conclusion. This balanced approach of logos and pathos they maintain throughout provides the reader the correct impression that they are being unbiased in the analysis. Botting and Adrian’s purpose was to acknowledge all the contributions that animal testing has had on the medical field throughout the

Animals have successfully been used to understand biological processes, assess safety of different chemicals, develop vaccines and antibiotics, produce treatments for hepatitis C, rheumatoid arthritis, polio, diabetes and many more . However, it is impossible to know if the use of animals was required to acquire this research or if the amount of suffering and death could have been reduced or avoided in order to achieve the same results. It is well established that animals have been invaluable in the pursuit of biomedical research, and the benefits from using animals currently means that eliminating animal research is also immoral. This is because the benefits received from some research greatly outweigh the potential costs to the animals and it would be unjust not to perform such experiments. Consequently, animal research should not be fully banned due to the benefits it yields, but should be more heavily regulated to reduce the moral costs.

Debates about animal research are often polarized. On one hand, increased knowledge, medical treatments or enhanced animal production are seen to justify any harm. On the other, animals have rights (Fisher, 2014). Ethics, alongside a more informed understanding of the benefits of research and of the aims of animal rights, may in fact produce a more sophisticated common ground between both sides of the debate.

The tension between animal rights and medical/cosmetic research is an extreme issue in today’s society. Every day millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness, and long to roam free and use their minds, but all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying, painful procedure that will be performed on them next. Animal Research is a very well known act and has been around for some time. Most of the advancements in the 20th century are because of animals. Many of the products we use each day from medicines to household products are tested generally on animals. Many people around the world think animal research is the right thing to do because of the benefits humans may receive from it. Humans often benefit from successful animal research, although, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Animals and people are alike in many ways; they feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Animal testing is by far the most heartless act anyone could preform; it is inhumane; there are other alternatives and results are not necessarily reliable.

It has been proven that “animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade” states Understanding Animal Research, an advocacy group that aims to demonstrate the need for humane animal research. Animal testing acts as a huge help to the well-being and health of

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.

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

Laws regulating animal use in medical research were introduced in England and in Germany in the 19th century, but not until the 1960’s were laws instituted in most countries, including the United States (Cartmill, 1993). Despite the outstanding number of animals killed each year, most countries have yet to better increase their insufficient policies protecting animals. “Most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available” (“Animal Experiments,” para. 11). The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966, which sought to protect animals from being wrongly used in medical research. However, the Animal Welfare Act provides only protection for a select group of species, excluding animals

The battle over whether it is justified for animals to be used for research is vicious. Animal activist organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) release gory images of animals that are deemed harmless (such as rabbits or puppies) in order to aid their argument that animal testing is inhumane. Those who support animal testing question the validity of the photos, countering the argument with statistical information of the good that animal experimentation has done, for humans and animals alike. In the center of the debate is the portion of the scientific community that relies on animal testing to prove that the substances that they created will not be harmful to people. In the scientists’ view, the method has no

Stated by Mahatma Gandhi, “The greatness of the nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Medical research on animals is an effective way for scientist to test different medical discoveries and experiment before using them on humans to check their result. This technique has been used for centuries dating back to people such and Aristotle and Erasistratus. What exactly is medical research on animals? When we take a deeper look into the experiment that are preformed we can conclude that animals are a living model of humans in these laboratories. It is a necessity to harm and test animals with new drugs in order to market them in the medical industry to aid human illnesses. In order to better comprehend and regulate drugs one must understand what medical research on animals is described as and its benefits to pharmaceutical companies for humans. Exposure to the trials and tribulations that animal testing reveals how important it is for scientists to understand the negative effects they contribute to an animal’s welfare and life. In contrary animal testing has been used to save many human lives from consuming or using a drug that could have caused them life threatening illnesses.

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.