The University of British Columbia, both Vancouver and Okanagan campus have a large hand in local and global research. UBC's website dedicated to explaining animal research at the University cites medical research as its biggest research endeavor. Creating new medicines, procedures and vaccines are all top priority for the university's science departments. The website's front page also highlights the school's dedication to treating the animals humanely using three buzz words popular to the scientific community: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement. Replacement referring to integrating non-animal research methods where possible and reduce the number of animals used through refinement of procedures. This paper seeks to explore this claim of …show more content…
This system functions through higher amount of funding allocated to sciences over other faculties, the fallacy of human superiority and by masking details of animal usage in research and conducting these experiments out of the public eye, and out of their discretion. This paper also looks at how animal research has been continually allowed and valued in the Canadian education system. In the end this paper argues that if we reject the Cartesian idea that animals operate akin to machines and instead agree that they are sentient beings, then any suffering imposed on them, for research or otherwise, is unethical and unnecessary. I argue from an abolitionist mentality to declare that UBC therefore should not and ethically cannot take part in using animals for scientific …show more content…
That is the number of animals that UBC used for research in 2016. The majority of these animals were rodents, fish or reptiles/amphibians. Other animals include birds, "small" or "large" mammals and marine mammals. The types of mammals are not specified, perhaps for fear that specifying the use of "pet" mammals such as cats or dogs would subject the school to public criticism. Despite not clarifying this distinction, the website's Frequently Asked Questions section states that UBC is very open about their animal use. UBC's animal research website's discourse on animal research uses flowery language and buzz words such as "humane" to paint their research as a positive undertaking. The website promises that the university upholds all federal regulations of animal treatment and that they are proud of the contributions they have made to the scientific and health communities. It also places a distinction between mammals and rodents, because rodents make up the majority of animals used, as if rodents are less morally significant than other mammals. There is an air of pride in the way the website speaks of using rodents instead of other animals. Another interesting finding on the website is UBC's acknowledgement that animals feel pain, although the university is quick to cover their own behinds by stating that they follow all regulations to ensure pain management for their animal
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Without animal research, cures for such diseases as typhoid, diphtheria, and polio might never have existed. Without animal research, the development of antibiotics and insulin would have been delayed. Without animal research, many human beings would now be dead. However, because of animal testing, 200,000 dogs, 50,000 cats, 60,000 primates, 1.5 million hamsters, and uncounted millions of rats and mice are experimented upon and die each year, as living fodder for the great human scientific machine. Some would say that animal research is an integral part of progress; unfortunately, this is often true. On the whole, animal testing is a necessary evil that should be reduced and eliminated whenever possible.
An article written by an animal researcher and psychology professor discusses the lack of ethical treatment towards primates in research labs. The author of Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher, John P. Gluck, justified the unethical treatment of primates by believing that scientific advancements are superior to the harm the primates experienced. One day a student of his presented a dissertation about a female rhesus monkey who unexpectedly passed away. The dissertation caused Gluck to feel that the animals he caused much harm to were more than objects used to create data. Although he tried to continually justify his actions, he eventually felt guilty and decided that the primates deserve to be handled ethically. Throughout the article,
Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...
In modern society, animal experimentation has triggered a controversy; consequently, vast amount of protests have been initiated by the animal rights community. Although these organizations have successfully broadcasted their concerns toward animal experimentation, its application continues to survive. Sally Driscoll and Laura Finley inform that there remain fifty million to one-hundred million animals that experience testing or experimentation throughout the world on a yearly basis. But despite opposition, animal experimentation, the use of experiments on animals in order to observe the effects an unknown substance has on living creatures, serves multiple purposes. Those particular purposes are: research of the living body, the testing of
Have you ever seen a stray animal on the side of the road and thought nothing of it? It is actions like that and others that continue to make this planet a cruel place for domestic animals to live. Many domestic animals are not created to destroy or harm anyone or anything. They are meant to be surrounded by loving caring humans who want to have a mutually beneficial relationship better them. Sadly, these animals are taken into shelters or pounds and if not claimed or adopted they are euthanized or become test subjects. According to PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, “each year, more than 100 million animals are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical,
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.
Nonetheless, animal enthusiasts request the banishment of animal experimentation in the laboratory. Unlike in the past century, both views have finally reached an agreement in this debate: as of now, a limited amount of rodents, or primates, such as white mice and rhesus monkeys can be tested in the laboratory. Which begs the question, why are these selected fews continue to be subject to gruesome experimentation unlike their brethren? Additionally, their moral status is lesser than other fauna, and shouldn’t they instead receive the same respect as well?
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...
Every year approximately 100 million animals are killed as a part of scientific research in the United States alone. Animal testing is a highly controversial practice in the modern world. There are records of animals being used in biological and medicinal research as far back as 384 BCE with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Many people believe animal testing is unethical as it is bringing harm to animals in order to benefit humans. Ever since the beginning of this practice, animal testing has been used for a variety of purposes, all of which are inhumane and unethical.
Horse racing has become increasingly popular as demonstrated by the growing amount of money bet on events each year. The Kentucky Derby, horse racing’s most well known event, is an applicable example. While lasting just over two minutes, the main race generated $112.7 million in wagering, up 7.8% from the year prior. (Brisnet.com) Some critics, however, feel that the sport as a whole has become artificially supported through genetic enhancement used to achieve the high level of precision and strength necessary to excel. An anonymous opinion piece in the New York Times brings attention to the relationship between an industry that has grown exponentially in revenue and the pressure placed on those in position to capitalize on that growth. In light of this opportunity to make a substantial amount of money trends have been established that undermine the safety of both the jockey and the horse. Although through the horses inability to voice an opinion in its own partnership a unique situation is created. Unlike the horse, a jockey may refuse the trainer or mangers urging to partake in jeopardizing or otherwise illicit activities. The risk thus unwillingly imposed on the horse raises large ethical and moral concerns, especially when the motives behind the behavior are made clear. In specific circumstances the use of genetic enhancement may be extremely beneficial although within horse racing the implementation of such procedures are by and large not utilized for the benefit of the horse but for the increased profit derived through alteration. Genetic alteration of horses is ethically and morally unjust within the context of horse racing because the long term risks the horses are unwillingly exposed to garner more importance than the in...
The Humane Society of the United States promotes research methods that can potentially replace, reduce, or refine animal use so that animals experience less suffering. An opinion poll was taken by the HSUS on September 23, 2001 on pain and distress in research. The findings were that 62% of people would approve of testing if little or no pain was experienced by the animals, while 75% disapprove when severe pain is experienced.
Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.