The Ethics Of Animal Research

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma Gandhi). Scientists have been using animals for biomedical research for centuries. They provide a source to get information scientists can not get without harming humans. A lot of debate is spread about whether it is good or bad. Animal experimentation is a controversial topic because it is helpful to humans, but it is also cruel and inhumane.

One reason that it isn’t ethical to do scientific research on animals is because animals are killed each year. About 20 million animals are experimented and killed annually. LIke I said before animals are starved, shocked, burned, and poisoned as scientists look for something that just might yield some human benefit. In one case, baby mice had their legs chopped off so that experimenters could observe whether they 'd learn to groom themselves with their stumps. In another, polar bears were submerged in a tank of crude oil and salt water to see if they 'd live. And, for those experiments which do have merit, there exist many non-animal alternatives. We don’t need animals to die. When scientists test

Animal activists and scientists experience ongoing conflict between animal experimentation and biomedical ethics. Animal testing is one of the oldest methods of experimentation. In the 1980s, the animal rights movement and the argument surrounding the ethics came under fire. As a result of this movement, the experimental procedures became public, giving more incentive to the activists and momentum to their cause. The ethics of animal experimentation come into question in everything from beauty products to the food and vitamins that are sent to consumers worldwide. However, because of the industries ' involvement within animal experimentation, many consumers do not know how these products they are purchasing are tested. Although the ethics of experimentation have come into question, new ideas of experimentation have progressed. Within the biomedical field, new testing methods for both medicine and beauty products have evolved. Because of this new technology, activists against animal experimentation argue that the necessity of animal experimentation is unneeded. In contrast, scientists argue it is not outdated. Despite the progress made by the activists many scientists still believe that animal experimentation will be needed. Although animal testing may have served as a useful tool in the past, it no longer is as accurate as the new technology and research methods from the 21st century.

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

A long time of debates go back and forth on the rights of all animals with further argument or debates, do humans have the right to use animals on medical testing and lab use? There are several issues that can be placed in this argument this research will acknowledge four important topics in the rights of animal testing. Is it right to use animals for testing? Is it right to compare animal DNA to human DNA in these animal experiments? Is it right to use real animals instead of computers to generate results? Is it right to state animals are being protected and cared for while giving toxins to make them sick? Therefore, the question needs to be asked if animals should be used for scientific experiments in labs all across the globe.

The animal experimentation is very difficult issue with a lot of people feeling very strongly of it, we are use the animals for the experimentation in different way, one of most big problem is for test the cosmetics, the images of animals with things put in their eyes for so we are able to look a bit better make many people very angry. Is it necessary?

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.

Animals have been treated immorally since the beginning of time, this is shown by hunting, farming, trapping, testing of products and biomedical research etc. As humans, majority of us claim animals as our resources as we use them for eating, making clothing, (leather and fur jackets, shoes) working animals, as a means of transport, animal testing etc. In this essay I will discuss the use of animals in biomedical research and state why some believe it is morally justified. I will then present an objection to argue why biomedical research is morally unjustified and why I believe this. I will write this essay using resources from Tom Regan 's, “The case for animal rights”, David DeGrazia’s, “The ethics of animal research: what are the prospects for agreement?’, Baruch A. Brody’s, “Defending animal research: An international perspective” and Peter Singer’s, “Animal Liberation at 30”. I will then come to my own conclusion based on the different perspectives from the above philosophers and by using my own knowledge on the issue.

Animal testing dates back all the way to Greek physician scientists like Aristotle and Erasistratus. Greek scientist conducted experiments to understand the anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology just like our scientists do today. The moral ethics of animal testing has always been questioned, but many cures and treatments have been found due to animal testing discoveries. Animal testing is necessary for humankind 's overall well being, as well as today 's society 's advancement to further the knowledge of the medical field.

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

In the United States, over 100 million animals are used for experimentation and testing every year. Most of these animals will either live a lifetime of misery and neglect or face death. A copious amount of controversy surrounds animal experimentation because of the way it is performed. Animal testing is done to test products for harsh chemicals, for medical research, and educational purposes.

As I have progressed through this journey, I feel as though I have gained a much greater insight into an issue, which is of far bigger global concern than I had initially realised. The basis of this investigation was to examine the social and ethical perspectives on animal testing and within that the tendency for human beings to classify and categorise forms of life, placing themselves at the top of the ladder. Through the use of primary and secondary methodologies I have been able to appreciate many differing opinions, ranging from passionate objections to uncertainty and then those in full support of continuation.

“An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the united states for scientific and commercial testing” (ProCon.org). We are rapidly using up the earth’s supply of small animals. “A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential (ProCon.org). Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked up in cages and are getting killed for scientific tests to create products and medicines. Thus, animal testing is cruel and inhumane to be experimenting on animals, there are alternative methods available to researchers to replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.

Animal research has led to numerous improvements for the quality of life in humans and other animals. The humane treatment of animals requires that if there is an alternative way of getting the same results, without using animals, then that should be done. Reducing the number of animals used for research would result in an increase in humans being used for research; therefore, it is not reasonable to decrease the number of test animals. Humans cannot justify an objection to killing an animal involved in a biomedical investigation if they are willing to eat animals. The killing of an animal to meet the needs of human beings is judged as reasonable by most people. The enormous amount of benefits to human beings has made biomedical experimentation on animals justifiable. Non-human animals have non-negligible moral worth. Causing and animal to go through excruciating pain to bring a tinge of pleasure to a human is wrong. Believing there is a moral difference between evil we do and evil we do not prevent must be rejected to make the researchers’ calculations implausible. It is believed that perpetrating and evil is worse than permitting an

In the history of mankind, human used numerous animals to sustain their life and to keep their species. They used animals to hunt other animals or they use them to protect themselves. Sometimes they eat the hunting animals if they fail to hunt other animal. They also used animals to acquire knowledge. They learned biology through dissect animals and they also learned pharmacology through test medicines on animals. However present day, people start to ask question about ethics of animal testing. Some groups of people say that animal testing has no problem with ethics. Most of people in this groups does not want to think of animals as on the same level of themselves. On the other hand, other groups of people think that because animals cannot