Animal Refinement

The Belmont Report identified three principles essential to the ethical conduct of research with humans:

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

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

This helps to ensure the results are as reliable as possible and allows progress in many fields of science it is important that everyone follows these regulations in order to maintain a high quality of research. Animal research has led to much advancement in scientific research and even continues to help the animals themselves, as our knowledge increases we need to use fewer animals to get the same results and in some cases have even been able to replace animals with non-sentient alternatives (House of Lords, 2002). I believe the procedures and policies in place do a good job of limiting animals in research to the minimum needed and do as much as is possible to ensure animals are treated as well as possible with as little pain, suffering or stress caused as is practicable (Bennett,

In conclusion, the benefits of responsible animal research are justifiable when lives can be saved in the masses. The ethics of animal research also will continue to improve as methods such as the 3Rs and enriching their environment. Even if there are those against it, the impact of these discoveries was what improved public health and medical research and made it what it is

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.

In this essay I will outline and defend the argument for complete abolition of the use of animals in biomedical research. I will ultimately agree with Tom Regan’s claim that “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources.” I will describe DeGrazia’s and Carruthers’ important objections to Regan’s claim as well as Regan and Singer’s responses. I will show that none of the objections overcomes Regan’s central argument.

Anderson, J.R. & Lebiere, C. (2003). The Newell Test for a theory of cognition. Behavioral and

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.

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.

Back then they dissected animals to determine how the living organisms worked, and they felt that it was justified because animals lacked intelligence. People really did not object to the animal testing until the nineteenth century. Queen Elizabeth of England was one of the early opponents of animal testing, and she started a movement against the testing of animals. This then eventually pressured the lawmakers into establishing the first laws in controlling animals for research. This law was known as Great Britain’s Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. This made way for many other laws and people fighting for the rights of animals. Over the years the “Three Rs” was established, and it stands for replacement, reduction, and refinement. Replacement is replacing the use of animals in testing with other research methods that would not harm animals. Reduction is lowering the use of animals in testing whenever possible. Lastly, refinement is reducing the pain and suffering and improving the living conditions of the animals. These are all forces that are being made to the animal testing industry to help save innocent animals. Over the years, many people are now beginning to object to testing animals and eventually ruining their life. The Gallup polls have shown that the moral grounds of the public’s opposition have risen. In the 2009 Pew Research poll shows that fifty-eight percent of

The focus of animal research has been characterized by three criteria, The Three R’s. “’The Three Rs’ are reduction, replacement and refinement. Here in the US, research communities are committed to supporting techniques that reduce the number of higher species used, replace animals with other models wherever/whenever possible, and refine tests to ensure the most humane conditions possible.” (Trull 2). Scientists try to keep the animals from being harmed as much as possible.

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

The ethics in the mistreatment of animals in experiments are constantly surpassed when in reality there are numerous alternative methods that satisfy the standards. Due to advancements in knowledge of animal cognition, it is known that animals possess human characteristics

Every year millions of animals are used as human food, in human sports for fun, to make clothing and to make test cosmetics, drugs, new-found treatments, and chemicals on humans. Among all these, the most contentious issue in the twenty-first century is the usage of animals in laboratories. Science is the most powerful field from which all new knowledge comes, and being the prime source of new technologies, more judgment, and science, the United States has a big responsibility to accomplish one or more of what the American Humane Society calls the “Three Rs”- reduce, replace, and refines: “They replace the use of animals in a scientific procedure; they reduce the number of animals used