“How can otherwise decent citizens do these things? How can they become so insensitive to what they are doing? Don Barnes, who spent sixteen years as a biomedical scientist experimenting on animals, and now heads the Washington, DC office of the National Anti-Vivisection Society, calls the state in which he used to do his work 'conditioned ethical blindness'” (Singer and Gruen 78-80). As a former vivisector, Barnes worked with monkeys and would cut them open while they were still alive. With a primary interest of biological science, vivisectors performed experiments on living animals to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. These studies are the few of many branches of biomedical science, the combination biology and medicine which mainly focuses on the health of both animals and humans. Animals are used as “models” for studying human biology and disease to understand basic biology, and as test subjects for the development of drugs, vaccines, antibodies and other medical treatments to improve and advance human health. As models, scientists aim to artificially produce a condition in a laboratory animal that may resemble the human equivalent of a medical disease or injury. Scientists may have good intentions but many do not realize that they are committing a great inhumanity as they continue to exploit animals for the “greater good”. Tom Regan came up with a similar conclusion:
I ask myself the same kinds of question. “Would these changes make a difference in my thinking? Would I say, ‘Well, since the cat lived in a larger cage, was treated gently, and died peacefully, I no longer object to what happened to her’?” My answer is always the same. I would still object to what happened to her…even ...
... middle of paper ...
...elmeier. "Translation of Research Evidence from Animals to Humans." Jama : the Journal of the American Medical Association. 296.14 (2006): 1731-2. Print.
Matthews, R.A.J. "Medical Progress Depends on Animal Models - Doesn't It?" Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 101.2 (2008): 95-98. Print.
Gruen, Lori, Peter Singer, and David Hine. Animal Liberation: A Graphic Guide. London: Camden, 1987. Print.
"Animal Research Alternatives" The American Anti-Vivisection Society. N.p., 21 Jan. 2009. Web. 13 Jan. 2014.
Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2009. Print.
Hester, R E, and Roy M. Harrison. Alternatives to Animal Testing. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2006. Internet resource.
“What is Vivisection?” New England Anti-Vivisection Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2014
RESPONSE: There are alternatives methods to replace animal testing and the technology for it will advance and continues to do so. The glass vasculature model, used to study fluid dynamics in cardiovascular studies, is a compact step in the right direction. Hopefully, a time will come when scientists do not have to use animals for scientific purposes. Other methods for curing Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, sickle cell disease, stroke, spinal cord damage and etc will develop. (74 words)
Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
The human population's use of domesticated and wild animals is both horrific and dangerously frivolous. For example, one might examine the usage of vivisection, or animal testing. Over fifty million animals such as dogs, cats, rabbits, and mice are killed in laboratories each year worldwide and are subjected to a myriad of painful procedures. They are burned, starved, shocked, mutilated, kept in isolation, poisoned, drugged, and electrocuted, among other tortures. Although many supporters of vivisection believe that it is necessary to test products on animals in order to ensure that our children are protected from numerous dangers, many doctors do not believe this. Cardiac Surgeon Moneim A. Fadali, M.D. sums up these doctors' beliefs. "Animal models differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human disease, are likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to the patient." As mentioned above, the frivolous use of animal fur for coats, hats, and other garments and entertainment such as the violent dog fighting also add to the waste of many animals.
For centuries scientists have used animals to study the causes of diseases; to test drugs, vaccines and surgical techniques; and to evaluate the safety of chemicals used in pesticides, cosmetics and other products. However, many scientists amongst animal- right activists forbid the use of animals in scientific research regardless how many illnesses are eliminated through the use of animals in scientific research. Amongst animal right activists, David Suzuki also raises concerns towards animal experimentation. In his article, The Pain of Animals, Suzuki argues that humans have no right to exploit animals because--much like humans--animals also experience pain. In contrast to Suzuki, Haldane, in his article, Some Enemies of Science, argues because animals are very similar to humans, scientists have no choice but to use animals in scientific experiments. Both authors greatly contrast their opinions towards animal experimentation; however Haldane has a more explanatory approach towards animal experimentation. He argues animal experimentation should be acceptable because other forms of animal exploitation are acceptable in society. Secondly, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Thirdly, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experiment...
League, Animal Defense. “Policy Statement on Animal Research.” Civil Rights in America. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999. American Journey.Student Resources in Context. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.
Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." AV Magazine CXIII (Spring 2005): 14-15. Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2011.
The roots of animal experimentation began in the early 1600s when the world expressed in interests on the functions of animals and their uses in human life. However, it wasn’t until the incident regarding the drug thalidomide in 1960 did the government make it a requirement for drugs be tested on animals. During the incident, millions of women took the medication believing that it would be a source of relieve from morning sickness, not knowing however that it would cause irrevocable effects on their unborn children (Watson 4). Although the ruling seemed to provide a sigh of relief to some, the very idea of placing animals in strange uncomfortable environments and experiencing pain and euthanasia angered many. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, commonly known as AAVS, It is wrong to treat animals as objects for the purpose of scientific research, and to cause them pain and suffering (“Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically Unnecessary”). Although the arguments against animal experimentation seem credible, animal testing on medicines and products are necessary in order to insure the safety of human beings.
For centuries, the use of animal experimentation in the biomedical field has been questioned ethically. Do the benefits of animals used in research outweigh the pain that the animals endure? Animal rights activists will argue that there are new alternatives that are more accurate than animal testing. Nonetheless, scientists will continue to use animals for the advancement in the medical field because there have been various cases where animals have paved the way, medically, for humans to this day. Additionally, testing on animals instead of humans puts humans out of harms way. The first Animal Cruelty Act was created in 1835 to regulate the use of animals for scientific purposes. According to Franco (2013), the “Enactment of the 1986 Animals
Now think about the needs of the animals that are caged up and stripped away from their natural homes. For example, chimpanzees spend hour's everyday grooming each other feeding their young and providing a comfortable environment for them to live in. They are loving protective parents and when they are taken away from their homes, they leave behind their children and the chimpanzees are no longer in their comfortable nests, but caged up alone and with cold, steel bars around them for the primary purpose of being experimented on (Baird, 1991). Not a nice picture right? But this is just one example of what most of the animal have to go through. I argue that animals have rights and should not be treated unfairly.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims to experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical i...
Science has made drastic changes in human lifestyles, life spans and comfort. Medicine has always been the center of attraction in the field of science. In an article, “The Ethics of Animal Experimentation” published in the Journal of Medical Ethics the authors contend, “Animals experiments are the bricks and mortar, in some cases the very foundations of the modern medical science…”( Petter, Hegarty, Roman, Ryder and Clark 118 ). The life span of diabetic patients has increased in the last 50 years only because of the introduction of artificial insulin, which was only possible due to animal experimentation. Similarly, we will fin...
Smyth, D. 1978. Alternatives to Animal Experiments. London: Scolar press in association with the Research Defence Society.
Throughout centuries medical research has been conducted on animals. “Animals were used in early studies to discover how blood circulates through the body, the effect of anesthesia, and the relationship between bacteria and disease” (AMA 59). Experiments such as these seem to be outdated and actually are by today’s means, scientists now study commonly for three general purposes: (1) biomedical and behavioral research, (2) education, (3) drug and product testing (AMA 60). These three types of experiments allow scientists to gain vast amounts of knowledge about human b...
Herzog, H. A. (1993). “The movement is my life”: The psychology of animal rights activism. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 103-119.