Should Animals Be Used For Scientific Experiments?

Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures, treatments, and major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, childhood leukemia, brain injuries, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Using animals as research subjects is appropriate because they are similar to human beings in many ways.

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.

How could one not feel guilty when looking into a test animal’s eyes and seeing all of the pain and suffering that they have endured? Over 75-100 million animals are used for scientific and medical research per year. (Baumans) Animals should not be used for scientific and medical research because it is unethical, humans and animals are not genetically identical resulting in failed tests, and there are other techniques to conduct research.

For thousands of years animals have been used as research subjects, but with the advancement of science and society, animal experimentation has morphed into a controversial bioethics topic. Animal experimentation is the use of animals in scientific research. This experimentation ranges from testing pharmaceuticals on rats to measuring the elasticity of tendons in rabbits to implanting mechanical devices in calves. And while the FDA has dozens of guidelines to keep animal testing as ethical as possible, a strong opposition to animal research (particularly mammalian research) still exists.

There are ten scholarly, peer-reviewed research articles selected for the preliminary literature review and they are summarized below. The relevance of the articles and the research findings, research design and methods are included below.

In the article “Research on Animals: Unforeseen Benefits,”1 the author, Adrian Morrison (1991), believes that biomedical research requires the use of animals due to the “long term gains” acquired (p. 176). Morrison continues to explain how people who believe that animals should not be tested on are not thinking about the effects these animals could have in the lab. He begins explaining how he believes that research

Although some people argue that animal testing has played a vital role in medical industries however, it has been proven that the majority of animal experimentation has no significant impact or breakthrough that could be beneficial to humans. This makes us question the validity of these experiments, and if they truly have any benefits. This idea is supported by Dr. Bross , the director of biostatistics at the Roswell Institute for Cancer Research who states that the conflicting animal results that have been found have never produced a single advance either in preventing or in curing cancer (as cited in Carlson, 2012, p. 398). The effort done by the scientists and doctors who care about people's health and work hard to provide safety for them

Animal testing is wrong in many ways, and cost more than we should spend on for a form of animal abuse. Animal abuse should be banned in every country, because it is wrong in many ways. I’m going to talk about how much animal experimentation is necessary, how much animal population is affected, what is being used on the animal.

First, animal exрerimentatiоn is an abusive methоd. Insufficient regulatiоn abоut рrоcedures that can be dоne tо animals allоws fоr abusive exрeriments. Abuse can be defined as excessive cruelty (willfully subjecting оthers tо рain and suffering) оr habitual viоlenсe. Abuse is allоwed in research beсause “the оnly U.S. lаw that gоverns the use оf аnimals in labоratоries—the Animal Welfare Act—allоws animals tо be burned, shоcked, роisоned, isоlated, starved, fоrcibly restrained, addicted tо drugs, and brain-damaged” (Animal Testing is Bad Science). These methоds are undeniаbly аbusive and сruel, beсause the suffering is intentiоnal. In Рractical Ethics, Peter Singer, an Australian рhilosoрher and рrofessor оn the ethics faculties оf bоth Princetоn University and University оf Melbourne, alludes tо British рhilоsoрher Jeremy Bentham whо famоusly рrороsed that “‘the questiоn is nоt, Can they reasоn? Nоr can they talk? But can they suffer?’” (Singer, Animal

Experimentation is a vital aspect of all sciences, as it validates hypothesis and furthers scientific development. However, many believe that science crosses the line when animals become subjected to experimentation as a way to further research. This is a controversial topic, as it examines what to us, as humans, is more important, morality or science? These animals are forced to endure pain and suffering, in an attempt to prolong and ease the lives of humans. Animal vivisection is unethical, and there are alternatives that can be utilized, therefore, it should be lessened, and ultimately eradicated.

Everyday humans interact with animals. Whether monitoring animals in zoos or having them as pets, humans have engaged in either positive or negative relations with animals. Animal experimentation also known as animal testing has been highly discussed, because of the questionable experiments being done on animals, and the way animals treated in general. Looking at the history, effects, and alternatives to animal testing, human involvement in the lives of animals as well as the ethicality of animal testing will be confronted.

Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. “Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research.” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 9, July 2011, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024059.

For several years, supporters and scientists have been arguing about whether the practice of animals research should be used. Many people believe animals are needed for research, while others think it is not fair for animals to be sacrificed and treated poorly during research. Animals used for research has bettered many human lives by new discoveries and advantages. Many people such as doctors, scientists, hospitals, research institutes use animal research to view how the human body works and to advance in scientific understanding. The first animal experiment started in the UK in the late 17th century with Harvey’s experiments on several species to demonstrate blood circulation. Even greek physicians such as Aristotle and Erasistratus has performed experiments on living things between the years 384-322 BC and 304-258 BC.

Animal testing is the experiment of animals like mice, dogs, rats, fish, birds, and many non-human creatures for the effective production of vaccines, drugs, and chemicals. It is estimated that more than one hundred million of animals are used for the experiments each year globally. Countries like U.S.A., U.K., Japan, China, Canada and so on are on the top list in using animals for the experimental purposes. They are being used to make sure that the vaccines and drugs manufactured are safe and defend against the pathogens. Almost ninety percent of vaccines and drugs are tested in a similar way before examining against humans. So, I believe that animals should be used for scientific testing.

Is using animals in medical research necessary? Some people would say yes, others would say no... but who 's right? No matter what one thinks or believes this question still remains, yet to be answered. At first this question seems like its answer lies within ones opinion and only that, but if you look closer there is a lot more to it than opinion. Feeling sorry for the animals is definitely where it starts for people who don 't agree with animal testing; but that 's not where it ends.