Morality Of Animal Testing

It is no secret that millions of animals a year are used for medical experimentation. One study “found the number of animals tested rose from 1,566,994 in 1997 to 2,705,772 in 2012” (Casey). It is my belief that researchers use virtue theory to defend their experimentations. While animal activists approach experimentation through the ethics of care. I am against animal experimentation, but I will also provide insight into why people believe it is ethically just.

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.

There is no argument that animals have played a critical role in medical research and paved the way for antidotes, cures and remedies for humans throughout history. Aristotle, who lived back in the fourth century B.C., is one of the first to be recorded as experimenting on a living animal. Back in the 1920s there was experimental testing on dogs which gave conclusive evidence to the functions the pancreas has on producing insulin. Before this, diabetes was untreatable, unmanageable and would easily result in death in humans (The Discovery of Insulin). Although testing on animals has been beneficial to us in many instances, there are several examples that prove testing on animals has hurt rather than helped the process. Many scientists argue that the physiological makeup of an animal differs strongly from that of a human resulting in different outcomes of drugs and other experiments. There has been a strong connection between smoking and lung cancer dating back to the 1960s, however all experiments done with animals failed to show

Asking just about any animal rights activists on the thoughts of animal testing, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of them would address crucial flaws in many of the laws in regards to animals and how animals are supposedly “protected” by these laws. Trained scientists and researchers take on the key role of testing on animals in laboratories and facilities throughout the world, using the excuse that we are expanding knowledge and furthering medical research. In the United States alone, there are very few laws truly protecting animals from the unnecessary amounts of suffering the research forces upon them with many exceptions. Additionally, in reference to the scientists who perform these tests, the author of the article,

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 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.

Summary/Description: This book discusses the pros and cons of animal testing. It gives a brief history of the animal right movement, and It also address the legal and ethical issues involved around this cruel testing. The Animal Act was rejected by Congress in the United States and animal testing became a part of scientific and medical life.

A paper by researchers at Yale University titled “Where is the Evidence that Animal Research Benefits Humans?” looks at various studies in which animals were used and shows that there is a small amount of evidence proving that these tests were directly beneficial to humans. In animal testing, human diseases and toxicity symptoms are mimicked in the animal, and the results of the test are often not similar in humans and animals (Stokes).The Food and Drug Administration reported that over ninety percent of products deemed to be safe for animals failed the test when given to humans. Many prescription drugs, such as Oraflex, Suprol, and Selacryn, are intensely tested on animals, and once they are distributed for human use, the results are not the same, causing sickness or death (PETA). For example, in 2004, a drug called Vioxx, intended to help with arthritis, was tested to be safe on animals, yet when brought up for people to use, it caused over sixty thousand deaths in the United States alone. Animals are not humans; therefore, they are not made up in the same way as humans are. Although we share many of the same functions as animals, our genes, cells, and tissues differ (Stokes). If one were to take a human gene and insert it into a rat, the gene would function completely differently in the rat’s body, just as a chemical would function completely differently in a human or rat. A quote from Pandora Pound, a British medical journal states, “The claim that animal

The issue of animal testing is a widespread and very controversial topic. It entails carrying out torturous and harmful tests and experiments on animals (most commonly mice or rats, but also other animals like rabbits and guinea pigs) for scientific research, whether it be for medical causes, products or cosmetics. In many cases, animal testing is unavoidable – it is impossible to rid the world of something humans rely on so dearly; however, it is imperative that we recognize the moral impacts of our actions and stop relying on it as a major research tactic. It is quite odd that it continues to be commonly used, despite being largely ineffective, the abundance of alternatives available, and the moral issues it brings into light.

An estimate of 1.4 million animals die each year due to animal testing. As people we have freedom, choice, and the right to live, however animals have a right to live in a world without suffering just as much as we do. Animals just like humans have emotions, thoughts, and feelings, so what makes it right to test on animals any more than to perform tests on humans? The benefits of testing on animals has still not been proven as the treatments that show promise in animals rarely work on humans. There are also many other options for testing techniques that we can use without performing harmful tests on animals, and finally it's entirely unethical. There are many alternatives overall so it is really still considered ethically right to take the freedom of animals just because we want to do research. Animal testing should no longer have a place in our modern day world.

Animal testing is an intense shared subject, with an enormous deal of emotion, passion, and thoughts on both sides concerning the ethics of this practice. In attendance there is a grey area as well, as some people support animal testing only under special situations whereas they contest its use for other

Thousands of animals are hurt and even killed because of animal testing every year. Scientists use animals of all kinds, apes, mice, rabbits, cats, etc. to experiment on. These experiments range from giving them drugs, to see what effect they might have on humans, to testing what extreme heat would do to the human body. The outcome of these experiments are often harm and even death. Animal testing is not morally justified because it causes harm to live animals, there are suitable alternatives to animal testing, and there are too many differences between humans and animals to be able to call the outcome “Accurate”.

Can you imagine what it’s like to live in a cage your whole life? What if every single day your body was poked with needles that injected either deadly diseases or possibly lethal doses of drugs into your system? In addition to that, what if you were force fed, not only food but, chemicals and drugs or you had to have your organs removed and skin be chemically burned? Most of us, thankfully, can’t imagine the horror of being mistreated like this. In the animal kingdom, humans are at the top. We hold superiority over all other living things which give us a substantial amount of power. However, we don’t always use this power for good. This is the reality of animal testing. According to Humane Society International,

Humans are animals, and as such it is morally wrong to use them to test pharmaceuticals intended for use by humans. Those who support animal experimentation believe it is a necessary evil, in part due to the false information put out by the media. The so-called benefits of animal testing have not helped humans for years, yet in many countries the law still requires researchers use animals to test their medications. In fact, although alternatives have been found, few steps have been taken to put an end to animal experimentation. Unfortunately, the way the activists present their argument that is one main reason they are not taken seriously, even though their points are valid. Animal testing is morally wrong and has not benefited humans as the media has claimed, but there are alternatives, such as new technology, if only humans would take the first step.

To obtain the sperm count, the entire epididymis from the rat was minced in PBS media and incubated for 5 min at 37C. The sperm concentration was determined by manual evaluation using a hemocytometer (Neubauer) (13).