Animal experiments and drug safety Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that. Instead, they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings.
Gargaro Written in July One of the questions facing society today is whether animals should be used in scientific experimentation. In the midst of this controversy, many ideas about nature, primarily animals, are formed. Each side has different arguments, each one posing questions on the place of humans with respect to animals and the rest of the natural world.
Numerous people are writing to me asking me why I am against animal experimentation.
Let me clear this up Because of the numerous people misinterpreting this article, I found it necessary to include this side note.
Many people argue against using animals for scientific experiments based on the human and nature relationship philosophies of Peter Singer, that humans are not completely above nature, focusing primarily on animals.
Singer calls many of the attitudes human beings have toward other animals speciesism, a concept which can been found throughout history. Aristotle held the view that nature is a hierarchy in which those with less reasoning ability exist for the sake of those with more reasoning ability Animal Liberation p Thus plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake of man.
He based his belief in slavery on the concept that humans with less reasoning ability existed for the purpose of serving more rational humans.
|The Ethics of Animal Experimentation - HOPES Huntington's Disease Information||This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.|
|Animal Testing - leslutinsduphoenix.com||Marnans expository essays essays literary moral and philosophical literary breaching experiment essay, taekwondo poomse 1 descriptive essay where are you going where have you been critical essays forstinger monika proquest dissertations africa the rise of nationalism essay medias influence on society essays on poverty o level english essay dissertation powerpoints implementation of the iom future of nursing report essay for college dodecaphonic essays essay on 26 january in punjabi youtube adonai eths explication essay stri bhrun hatya essay 5 years plan essay help neurotoxicological research paper. Compulsory essay literacy narratives essays.|
|Essay against using animals medical research||Animal research has had a vital role in many scientific and medical advances of the past century and continues to aid our understanding of various diseases.|
|BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals||Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status — that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals.|
|Are animal models useful?||Arguments against animal testing Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective.|
Although the view that less rational humans exist to serve rational ones has been rejected by society, "we still retain that view towards non-human animals" In Defense of Animals, Singer p2. Speciesism is practiced by Jews and Christians who base their superiority on God's words in Genesis.
They believe that man alone is created in God's image, and man alone is given dominion over all the animals on earth. Speciesism is practiced by the scientists of today who lock up chimpanzees in research centers, sometimes under horrendous conditions, to be used in experimentation.
These same scientists, however, would never consider doing that to any human being, even one whose intelligence level was below that of the chimpanzee. The only reason for this difference is that the chimpanzee is not human, no matter how smart it is; but a human, no matter how unintelligent, is still a human.
The concept of speciesism is considered by Singer to be as indefensible as racism Defense p6. The animal liberation movement, however, does not say all beings are of equal worth, or that the interests of all animals and humans should be given equal weight.
It is stating that "where animals and humans have similar interests - we might take the interest in avoiding physical pain as an example, for it is an interest that humans clearly share with other animals - those interests are to be counted equally, with no automatic discount just because one of the beings is not human" Defense p9.
Singer clearly illustrates that his rejection of speciesism does not imply that all beings are of equal worth by considering how we make choices within our own species. If we had to choose between saving the life of a normal human being and one that was intellectually disabled, we would probably save the life of the normal human being; but if we had to choose between preventing pain in the normal human being versus the intellectually impaired - suppose that both had superficial but painful injuries and we only had enough pain-killer for one person - the choice is not so clear cut.
One would choose probably on the basis of which human was suffering more. The same is true when other species are considered. Since most animal experimentation causes pain for the animal, the animal rights movement is committed to the goal of "the total abolition of the use of animals in science" Liberation p Those in favor of animal experimentation argue that " the fact that animals can suffer, although morally significant because it gives animals the status of moral patients or recipients, is not by itself a sufficient ground on which to accord them equal moral status with humans" M.
Fox, The Case for Animal Experimentation p And if animals are not on equal moral status with humans, "We are under no moral obligation to restrain from using them" M.
Since anything that is not morally wrong is morally permissible, then it is morally permissible to use animals in experimentation. Most persons supporting the use of animals in experimentation do not feel this means that we are free to harm or abuse animals whenever we wish or that we lack grounds for having moral concerns over animal suffering, especially when caused by humans.
But if either a human or animal is to suffer, then it is better for the animal to suffer, because human suffering is generally of more concern than that of animals. There are more types of suffering to which humans are susceptible.
For instance, if it was necessary to deform a toe of a being for important research, it would be better to use an animal because it would not suffer any type of humiliation from being deformed. In fact, it might not even realize that its toe is deformed.The primary reason given for using animals in research is that most medical advances since the 19th century have resulted from research using animals (Mepham, ).
Using animals in research has long been a crucial part of science and has enabled our understanding of how we function to progress in leaps and bounds. No; Eventually, it should be optional to use animals in drug testing.
More funding should be put into developing alternatives to experiments using animals. In conclusion, using animals for medical research is ethical and useful because it contributes to scientific development to improve human health.
Despite the benefits of animal testing, some of the animal welfare organizations concerns need to be addressed with adequate regulations being enacted to ensure that animals are treated humanely.
A More Responsible Approach to Animal Research, Testing, and Experimentation - It’s Time for a More Responsible Approach to Animal Research, Testing, and Experimentation The debate about using animals for medical testing has been raging for years. If the argument against speciesism regarding suffering is to be used to argue against animal experimentation, it has to include all animals in every situation, not just scientific experimentation, for animals suffer at the hands of humans for other purposes.
The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research 90% in and 89% in —is ready to accept the use of animals in medical research if the research is for serious medical purposes, suffering is minimized and/or alternatives are fully considered.
It is an unrealistic hope—and a false claim.