Across Europe, the use of animals in scientific research began to expand over the 19th Century, in part supported by the development of anaesthetics which had previously made animal research impossible.
Justifying Animal Use in Scientific Research The use of animals in scientific research especially biomedical testing is still a controversial issue despite the benefits realized from it and the lives saved from the same. Society is sensitive to moral issues.
Therefore, the interests of scientists in biomedical research using have indicated clearly that the use of animals in scientific research must be performed under certain ethical, legal, and scientific conditions. Other critiques have already recommended that use of animals in any kind of biomedical research should be banned with immediate effect.
However, abolishing animal use in biomedical research is impossible, and there is a legitimate demand that scientists need to use animals in researches. In fact, use of animals in research has been important in the acquisition of medical knowledge such as understanding fundamental processes in human body and generally improving the quality of health of human beings as well as animals.
Those animal activists who emphasize the rights of animals as being violated by their use in scientific research should first define rights then determine whether the concept can be used in the context of animals. The proper definition of rights asserts that they are claims or potential claims to be realized against another within a society of moral agents consequently, animals cannot be said to have rights since they cannot participate as independent and rational agents in any moral society Regan, A human being cannot make a claim on a dog or lion that attacked him or her because the dog does not recognize the interests of human beings.
Nonetheless, this does not disqualify animals as not having a moral status. Both human beings and animals are said to have interests in the well-being of their lives as well as freedom and thus to have a moral status.
There are people who think animals have no moral status and human beings can do with them as they please and there are those that think the moral status of animals is equal to that of human beings.
Personally, I think that the moral status of a living thing should be graded based on their cognitive capabilities. Just as a mother would prefer to have a mouse in a burning house as opposed to her child, then medical tests should be performed on animals not human beings. Human beings are different from animals in that they can rise above their biological lives in a manner that animals cannot.
Human beings have a unique ability to study nature and understand it such as the fundamental biological processes that affect life and disease processes. They have the ability to accumulate and store large amounts of knowledge in a perpetual form, which can be used to secure benefits for next generations.
Human beings can challenge nature through technological advances and enhance the well-being of all living things on the earth. The human being carries a large moral burden since they often find themselves in positions requiring them to make decisions that concern the tradeoff between human and animal life.
For instance, people in areas faced with drought and malnutrition cannot refrain from eating their cattle because it is inhumane since human beings in perfectly food secure conditions already eat beef without causing ethical controversies.
In Australia, all research and teaching that involves the use of animals must be according to the "Australian code of Practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes." Each animal testing must be assessed by an" . May 13, · Animal Testing is Required by the Law. Despite the growing trend in the use of animals for scientific research, there has been a growing debate from different quarters of the American society with one side in support and the other in attheheels.comon: N Cave Creek Rd, Phoenix, History of animal research - essay resource. The use of animals in scientific experiments in the UK can be traced back at least as far as the 17th Century with Harvey’s experiments on numerous animal species aiming to .
A utilitarian consideration may help justify the use of animals in biomedical research. The probability of using one experiment to heal severe diseases and advance our knowledge is very high. Taking the example of a burning house again, when the fireman is faced with a situation of a person and a pig in a burning house, he is likely to save the person regardless of where he or she is trapped in the burning house.
Critiques who equate the life of the pig to that of the human effectively condemn the person to death in the same version of saving the pig from a burning house as opposed to the person. So far animal use in scientific research has produced significant results and has saved many lives throughout the world Ringach, p.
Some people may argue that researchers cannot justify individual experiments using utilitarian considerations unless they know that the experiment would yield positive results, and no one might theoretically disagree with that. However, animal use in scientific research is usually conducted to establish whether a certain theory in the biomedical field can be realized.
When subjecting the animals to those intrusive tests, the scientists usually have no idea of what the side effects of the tests would be or whether the tests would traumatize the animals mentally or physically Conn and Parker, Therefore, it is difficult to know that the experiment would give good results or not.Essay on The Use of Non-Human Animals in Psychological Research Words | 3 Pages The Use of Non-Human Animals in Psychological Research Animals used in research have proved to be an important factor for the uses of medicine, for example Flemming found the use of penicillin was an effective antibiotic when it was used on mice.
However, the issue of using animals in medical research notably attract public attention because, to many people, it appears unnatural and cruel, even though the number of animals used for other purposes and the ill-effects exposed (eg.
blood sport) may often be greater, because the estimated 50 million animals used annually in experiments worldwide only account for about % of all animals used (Mepham, .
Many cosmetic companies, for example, have sought better ways to test their products without the use of animal subjects. In Against Animal Testing, a pamphlet published by The Body Shop, a well-known cosmetics and bath-product company based in London, the development of products that "use natural ingredients, like bananas and Basil nut oil, as well as others with a long history of safe human usage" .
The use of animals in research is never undertaken lightly. Researchers working with animals carry out their experiments with extreme care to eliminate or minimise suffering. Whenever possible painkillers and anaesthetics are used to manage pain, in the same way it is when an animal visits a vet.
Jan 17, · Animal testing can help people by giving them cures and making sure that ever product is safe to use. Animal testing should not be done because animals don’t have a choice and it is wrong.
Should Animals Be Used for Research Words | 11 Pages.
Professor Sophie Sills English December 16, Should Animals be used for Research During the past ten years, a major controversy over the use of animals in biomedical and behavioral research has arisen. The debate about using animals for medical testing has been ongoing for years.