APA FORMAT

Running Head: Animal Experimentation

Animal Experimentation

Moral and Ethical Implications

Student’s Name

Course Name and Number

James Professor/Instructor’s Name

Month, Day, Year

End of Page 1 ð

Animal Experimentation

Moral and Ethical Implications

The debate on whether or not medical experimentation on animals should continue is a heated and very complicated one. On the surface, it is a simple morality question and since killing is wrong, then experimenting on animals is wrong. However, while the purpose of this paper is not to persuade, it is important to note that this issue is not as simple as it appears. Case in point, when faced with the impossible situation of having to choose between your family or your pets, I submit that the overwhelming majority would choose their family. It is human nature to rank the various organisms on this planet in order of importance, with humans naturally ranking above all others. While it is morally distasteful for most of us to think of our beloved pets being subjected to what is by all accounts, a horrific situation, it is also just as distasteful to imagine the suffering our own species would undergo without the various vaccines that are directly linked to the results of animal experimentation. As such, I challenge you to, at the very least, consider both sides of this complex issue and keep an open mind. Perhaps someday we will be able to find a suitable replacement to animal research that both sides agree provides the same benefits. However, until then we need to work together in understanding both sides of this issue and keep the lines of communication open, because without debate, there can be no change.

The central argument surrounding the position of those opposed to the experimentation on animals for any reason is primarily based on morality. As such, it is nearly impossible to refute or speak against their position without being viewed as “anti-animal” much in the same way that pro-President Bush supporters have been viewed as pro-war recently. Obviously, there are numerous negative connotations in receiving such a label and most therefore would prefer to avoid such an implication. This effectively forces people to believe, or at least think they believe, that they are against the idea of animal experimentation. Add to this the argument that we do not have a right, as humans, to inflict pain and suffering on another species, whatever the reason, and you begin to define this morally charged, right versus might, pseudo-religious argument that we have today. However, this is not a new argument, as some believe. Rather, it has likely been argued for as long as humans have preyed on animals for anything other than pure survival. In fact, as early as 1959, when the “three R’s” (refinement, reduction, and replacement of animals in experimental research roles) were proposed (Derbyshire, 2004) this heated debate has flourished with no real end in sight.

As indicated above, the primary strength of this side of the debate in question is the very nature of the argument itself – that is, the morality, or righteousness of the position. It is against the laws of humanity to sacrifice another species for the betterment of mankind, they argue. We cannot think of ourselves as enlightened while treating any other species as a lesser species not worthy of the same right to live as us humans. And who are we to select which species should serve at our expense. As you can see, these are all extremely powerful and valid points to consider which further strengthens this side of the argument. Additionally, alternative methods are believed by some to be available and capable of providing much of the same information that experimentation on live animal’s produces. As such, the use of animals in these horrific experiments is seen as wholly unnecessary with today’s technologies. Moreover, animal rights proponents point to the differences between the human species and that of those animals chosen for experimentation. They state that those differences are so profound that any accurate extrapolation from one species to another is impossible and therefore it is immoral and even criminal to sacrifice these animals when it doesn’t even contribute to human health. Specifically, supporters of animal rights state, “Animal tests, commonly viewed as a miraculous research method, have failed to produce any definitive advances in cancer research.” (Hurley, 1999). Animal rights activists also point to the “horrors of animal experimentation” which, they say include such things as “conscious monkey’s forced to inhale toxic smoke” and “blinded cats dropped into vats of water” (Hurley, 1999). Clearly, these vivid depictions are very persuasive and tend to shift feelings of compassion toward the helpless animals so that we are inclined to want to stop the seemingly senseless atrocities being committed in the name of science.

However, these arguments are not without their weaknesses either. Morality is a very relative term and so what is moral to one person is not to another. More accurately, morality has several levels and the supporters of animal experimentation steadfastly argue that their actions, while sometimes distasteful, are anything but immoral. In fact, they believe those actions have saved the lives of countless humans over the years and will save countless more in the years to come. Animal experimentation supporters state that the horrifying depictions of dying animals are often taken out of context and state that in fact the animals are treated as humanely as possible while undergoing these experiments. Finally, the results themselves provide the greatest weakness for this side of the argument. While not all experiments yield useful results or provide valid predictions. The fact is, as we will see below, that a very large number of our medical breakthroughs have come at the expense of animals who, if absent, would have led to unimaginable human pain and suffering.

Those who condone and/or support the use of animals other than humans in medical experiments do not consider themselves to be “anti-animal” but rather, “pro-humanity”. They claim their actions are not those designed to torture helpless animals, but to prevent the suffering of other human beings. Moreover, they argue that it isn’t that they enjoy the means to these ends, but that there just isn’t a suitable replacement for the majority of experiments. Simply put, these experiments require measuring reactions to various stimuli on the entire organism as a whole; something no computer program or cell tissue can provide currently.

To defend their side, animal experimenters generally point to history as their primary strength. Carl Cohen illustrates his support of this side of the debate with the following: “During the summer of 1952, more than fifty-eight thousand American youngsters contracted polio. Thousands of these children died; thousands more were sentenced to a lifetime in the cruel machine that we called the iron lung.” (2005). Cohen goes onto state that by the end of that decade “the number of reported polio cases in the United States had been reduced to twelve…” (2005). The credit for that vaccine went to the animals that were sacrificed in its production. Other notable rewards from animal experimentation include identifying the “Rh factor” which has allowed countless children, who would otherwise have been brain dead, to be born without complications. The development of chlorpromazine, a powerful schizophrenia drug; the rubella vaccine; cornea transplants; “current vaccine candidates against AIDS”; organ transplants; the anti-rejection drug Cyclosporin; and the heart-lung transplant design (Derbyshire, 2004). Lastly, they argue that the vast majority of the animals experimented on are rodents bred specifically for this purpose. Supporting this, Cohen states that of the estimated 1.6 million animals used in medical and pharmaceutical research, approximately 90 percent were rats, mice and other rodents. He further states, “…the number of dogs and cats killed each year as experimental subjects is less that one-fifteenth of the number of dogs and cats killed in animal shelters by the humane societies for convenience.” Furthermore, “dogs and cats make up less than 1 percent and primates less than three-tenths of 1 percent. Pigs, rabbits and chickens are used more – but they amount to an extremely tiny fraction of 1 percent of all those billions of pigs, rabbits and chickens killed for use as human food” (Cohen, 2005).

This is not to say that this side of the debate is without weakness. The very nature of the work does include subjecting various species of animals to testing situations that would be considered crimes against humanity if done on unwilling humans. Additionally, the scientists themselves are beginning to become their own worst enemy by working in very secure laboratories under secret conditions (because of the “bad press” associated with animal experiments) while doing everything possible to keep the actual methods used to produce today’s medical breakthroughs, as they apply to animals, quiet. Moreover, when confronted directly, today’s scientists have taken a somewhat apologetic attitude toward their work which, when combined with the less than advertised nature of their work on animals has resulted in public suspicion. This, in turn has made it more difficult for research centers to use animals in their experiments. Animal rights activists have thus recently been able to make progress towards passing laws preventing the experimentation on some animals which many scientists believe will only harm humanity in the long run.

Regardless of the side of this argument we subscribe to we need to remember that at the end of the day we are all working to benefit humanity as a whole. Unfortunately, supporters of both sides have been accused of single mindedness in their viewpoints and this has led to a somewhat stagnant “front line” in this debate. We need to remember that neither side is inherently evil in their beliefs or actions nor are there any mad scientists experimenting on animals for the sake of experimentation. It is likely that supporters of both sides have valid points and that a compromise of sorts is in order. To this end we need to continue to work at finding suitable alternatives to animal experimentation while at the same time recognizing that at this stage of our scientific awareness, animal experimentation at some level may be a necessary evil.

References:

Cohen, C. (2005). Animal Experimentation is Necessary. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Derbyshire, S. (2004). Animal Experimentation is Justified. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Hoff, D. J. (2005). Alternatives to Animal Dissection in the Classroom.

Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Hurley, J. A. Ed. (1999). Animal Experimentation Is Never Justified.

Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Miller, S. R. A. (2005). Animal Experimentation is Unnecessary.

Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.

Orlans, B. F. (1996). The Case Against Dissection. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center.