Why Is It Morally Wrong To Use Animals In Biomedical 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.

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.

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all

Researchers treat animals right because they use them to uncover cures and treatment that humans can use. Scientist Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez stated, “that animals in research are treated “humanely and with dignity” (Garner, 2016). These two scientists reassured the reader that animals subjected to testing are treated with respect. They are not treated in bad testing conditions, which may harm the animals and manipulate the outcome of the test. In addition to these scientists claim, there are also laws protecting animals, such as “federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” (ProCon, 2017). Treating these animals with dignity is correct by the researchers because the animal is sacrificing his/her freedom to the outside world so it can be experiment on to find medical treatments and cures for

To begin with, animals ' rights are abused when they are utilized as a part of research.  Animals and individuals are similar in numerous ways; they both feel, think, act on, and encounter torment. Therefore, animals should be treated with the same dignity as people. However animals ' rights are disregarded when they are utilized as a part of research since they are not given a decision. Animals are subjected to tests that are again and again agonizing or cause lasting harm or even death, and they are never given the alternative of not taking part in the experiment. Animals don 't freely give themselves up for the progression of

People often use animals for a lot of experiments even though most people think that is it wrong. People make up countless excuses to why it’s okay to do this. But it is not okay. Animal researchers and such agree with my opinion that using animals for tests that we as humans would never want to do, is bad and very hypocritical, yet unfortunately there are just as many scientists who say that it is completely fine and that there isn’t really much harm brought to the animals. Mind you, these scientists have apparently never owned a beloved pet close to their heart. The two essays, "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs" by Tom Regan and "Proud to be Speciesist" by Stephen Rose, talk about the issue of animal rights, but are written on completely opposing

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

These methods have contributed to a technological revolution in biomedical research, thus, rendering the need for test animals outdated. We use technology for so many applications in our life, why can we not switch over in this instance if there is such a high demand for it? Unfortunately, like so many other issues we face today, we have yet to come up with one solid view when it comes to animal rights.

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.

Regan states that the use of animals in research assumes that their value is reducible to their possible utility relative to the interests of others. Regan states that it is wrong for us to use animals to be eaten, exploited for money or sport, or surgically manipulated. Regan has a Kantian view of how we should treat animals in research and in general. The possible utility of animals approach shows that people believe that we have no duties directly to animals, that we owe nothing to them, that we can do nothing that wrongs them. One problem with this view is that it is anthropocentric and does not take account of the possible sufferings of other species. Animals are subject to painful and inhumane treatment during biomedical research and testing, they have entered into a contract that they have not given contest to. The violation of animals’ rights means that decisions are made for them, and usually do not benefit them. It is wrong for humans to decide what should be done with animals.

The essence of the issues is if animals are being subjected to medical research against their will; is liable to say that we don’t place a high value on living things that are outside our human race? Subjecting animals to experiments that we would not consider ethically feasible to apply to humans. There are limitations that are placed legally to protect humanity. When considering animals for experimentation, there are no legal guidelines that restrict scientists from harming them. Ascribing animals to a lower moral status because of their lack of intelligence, communication skills, and human relations; taking advantage of them are quite easy. “According to the “Moral Theory of Animals, “there are two types of approaches that support this idea. One approach starts from the position that the interests of animals, particularly in avoiding suffering, should be taken into account when judging whether it is acceptable to use them for medical purposes that benefit human beings. The second approach argues that animals, like human beings, have rights that must be respected when considering their use for such purposes.” (Stanford

Some of the earliest records on animal testing date back to ancient Greek philosophers and physicians such as Aristotle (1). Since then, the use of animals in experimentation has grown tremendously and has evolved into an indispensable arm of biology. Whether it be to test the effects of various chemicals on living organisms or developing a model of a disease for future study, biology makes ample use of model organisms for a variety of purposes and without their implementation many of the medical advancements we enjoy today would not exist. Despite their deep and widespread historical use, the ethical considerations of using these animals is still a highly debated topic around the world. This essay will argue that animal use is vital to the advancement of biology and that ample ethical standards are in place to ensure they receive the

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

Upwards of forty percent of government funding by the center of disease control goes to experimentation on animals (Animal Rights- I think Hope). That’s billions of dollars poured into animal research, most of which is eventually scrapped for being too dangerous or too unreliable. Unlike with humans, there are currently little to no laws in place to protect the lives of animals. Many argue whether or not animals should even have rights. After all, they can’t reason the same way humans can. They act mostly on instinct. However, most animals are capable of feeling both pain and fear. Science could be furthered more effectively without exploiting animals.

The issue of animal experimentation is a widely debated topic in the United States. A fundamental question of this debate is whether the functions of animal testing and research are morally and ethically justified. In the viewpoint of the pro-research community, animal testing is a necessary practice. They support this position by stating that humans, instinctually, prioritize their own survival above other animals thus making any use of animals justifiable (Fox 5). The supporters of animal testing believe that it is illogical for humans to place anthropocentric values in animals citing that they can not be moral equals to mankind (Fox 3, 6). The animal rights faction holds belief in different viewpoints against the testing of animals in