Surname 1 Student's Name Professor's Name Course Date The Ethics Surrounding Animal Testing Animals have been used as lab rats since the fifth century and have been used for various experiments. This scientific research has helped advance medical researches as well as make a significant breakthrough. Different species of animals, especially rats, have DNA that is keenly related to humans. Thus, various drugs and vaccines can be used on these animals without being given to humans. Therefore, different side effects can be analyzed of these drugs. Some people are against animals' use for experiments since they consider this act inhuman since, like humans, the animals also have feelings and emotions and should not be tortured. Advancements in medicines and the emergence of new diseases have significantly increased animals' use in the labs as experiments. The ethics of animal testing and experimenting remains a highly controversial issue that has triggered an unending debate. A significant number of people led by the animal rights movement and animal rights advocates maintain that all animal testing and experimenting need to end since it is utterly wrong to treat animals as mere tools and specimens for advancing knowledge (Holden). The animal rights movement led by animal rights activist claim that animals have as much right to life, free of suffering and pain as humans (Holden). The other group of people in the debate on the ethics of animal testing and experimenting maintain that while it is wrong to cause animals pain and suffering pointlessly, animal testing should continue due to the immense scientific knowledge it provides (Holden). Supporters of animal testing Surname 2 maintain that progress on the issue is very much possible. They point to improvements in laboratory animals' conditions, significantly supporting and advocating for efforts to improve living conditions in animal laboratories. For instance, they emphasize the appropriate use of anesthesia to reduce animal pain and suffering. They also highlight the need for animal testing to be carried or done by trained personnel. The debate and controversy surrounding the animal testing issues reinforce its importance as an area that needs significant and massive attention. A close evaluation of the issues points to the existence of several positions and views on ethics in animal testing and experimenting. The two positions identified above show the two most common positions on the debate: the supporting and opposing ends of the issue. However, another position seemingly presents views that are much closer to the middle of the debate. This middle view endorses testing on some animals, especially those on the lower levels of animals' taxonomy. It also aims to reduce and possibly eliminate the pointless use of animals in scientific research, urging scientists and researchers to consider and pursue alternative methods to animal testing and experimenting. The Case Against Animal Experimentation When animals are being experimented on, most of them suffer and eventually die. Pain is a significant side effect of the many experiments that the animals feel. Internal organs of the animals are viewed after dissecting the animal. In other cases, animals are injected with chemicals supposed to heal the human disease being researched upon. As a concern of enhancing biological knowledge, it has been realized that animals would undergo the same suffering just like the humans would do if taken as the experiment testing objects with a relatively low margin in the degree of suffering between the animals and humans. Another suffering that animals undergo is being deprived of some physiological needs such as rest. In some experimental Surname 3 testing, animals are compelled to stay in an alert state through stringent experimental controls. In such a scenario, animals become worn out and die. Animals, too, do not deserve to experience extreme pain as scientists work hard to reduce human beings' happenings. Experimental testing violates animal rights. Animals have fundamental rights to exist in the world like the human race. Thus, the adoption of animals in the testing of medical inventions would be termed ethical as most of the animals being exposed in such moments are likely to die or transformed into mutants. Medical research experiment objectives do not always turn out as expected. Instead, they can change the animals into zombie-like creatures, thus destroying the animal's genetic constitution. In 1822, the animals were protected with the enactment of protection laws by the seating parliament. After a couple of years, the 'Cruelty to Animal Act' of 1876 was enacted to regulate the number of animals used for testing purposes. The Act demands that animals be used if there is no alternative to replace an animal in the research (Buller et al., 2018). The state, too, protects animals. Excessive use of animals in experimental testing would result in the extinction of some species. Thus, the Earth would eventually lose its aesthetic value. As a way of caring more about the future generation, it is worthwhile to protect animals, regardless of their toxicological existence, as they undertake a vital role in beautifying the environment. The cost to the benefits of humans is not justifiable to harm animals. As already mentioned, more than 80 million animals in recent past years have been used to facilitate advancement in the medical revolution. Experimental researches are done every year by both authorized and non-authorized organizations. The study's objectives do not facilitate an acute need to use the animal in the experimental testing. In such cases, the research benefits can only benefit one species in the only man's ecosystem. Surname 4 Smith (2018) states that independent researchers should be subject to ethical concern before being licensed to use experimental testing animals. The benefits need to be critically scrutinized. Searching for animal replacement should be of top priority, and the cost benefits to other animals and the environment should be considered. In most cases, scientists do not consider taking care of the universally accepted code of ethics in using animals in experimental advancements. Societal values being upheld by a laboratory concerning animal health need to be considered as that case is to human health for mutual coexistence. The Case for Animal Experimentation However, from another perspective, animals' use for research matters, especially in enhancing the health of both humans and other organisms in the ecosystem, cannot be fully said to be unethical. In terms of hierarchical observation in the taxonomy of organisms, the lower level's use is justifiable. It would be most illogical to use human beings before determining the impacts such invention can have on the organism, especially man. In such cases, the anticipated loss would be of high magnitude compared to when animals from the lower levels are used (Clark et al., 2017). Man's life is more 'important than that of a mouse or a dog, thus giving humans a better chance of not being used in experimental testing at the research's preliminary stages. Regardless of this statement, it is not ethical to use animals in doing exploratory risk testing as the animals possess other attributes that make them live to be precious as that of human beings (Mellor et al., 2017). The concept of reason should not be the main reason to subject animals to torture, but safety measures should be taken to alleviate the agony. Proponents of animal testing argue that on a moral scale, humans are way above animals. They use this argument as the basis of the claim that the benefits of humans from animal testing surpasses and outweigh the abuse, harm, pain, and suffering inflicted on animals during scientific Surname 5 experiments. Some supporters of animal testing use the notion of a moral community as the cornerstone of the view that the benefits of humans from animal testing are morally justified. They maintain that animals lack a moral community, unlike humans. Notably, animals at large do not have some traits in common as compared to humans. Therefore, animals cannot assume some responsibilities towards one another and do not have specific rights. From this perspective, animals, unlike humans, are considered to lack the right to make independent decisions and live independently. Hence, they are categorized as less important than humans on the moral scale and appropriate tools and specimens for animal testing. Analysis The varying positions on the debate on ethics in animal testing suggest the need for ethical considerations and concerns. Before any experiment is done using or on animals, researchers need to draft and present their research procedure to the animal ethics committees ("Animal Studies: Important Ethical Considerations You Need to Know"). The animal ethics committees aim at preventing the unnecessary pain and suffering inflicted on animals during experiments. They emphasize the need for researchers in animal-based experiments to focus on the three Rs that moderate and eliminate the undue pain caused on animals during testing. These 3Rs include replacement, reduction, and refinement ("Animal Studies: Important Ethical Considerations You Need to Know"). Regarding replacement, the animal ethics committees underline the need for researchers to seek and pursue alternative methods to animal testing. Concerning reduction, they emphasize the need for researchers to reduce the number of animals they use in experiments. Herein, researchers are urged to consider using the lowest number of animals that can offer reliable data. Lastly, the animal ethics committees identify and stress scientists' need to refine and improve animal experiments to moderate and eliminate negative Surname 6 impacts on the animals used. A closer scrutiny points to the appropriateness of animal testing but under specific conditions. Scientific knowledge is crucial as it will lead to breakthroughs in various research fields, especially the medical part. The life expectancy of man and that of animals should be enhanced. The most viable way is by conducting enough experimental testing involving animals to come up with the required solutions to health concerns. However, as noted, such experimental testing on animals is quantified to be unethical because they result in causing animals suffering, and they also violate animal rights. Lastly, the cost benefits of such testing are not justifiable to harm animals. Therefore, researchers should look for alternatives to replace animals in doing their research, such as using computerized simulation systems and ensuring that the experimental testing is worth the suffering the animals would undergo. Surname 7 Works Cited "Animal Studies: Important Ethical Considerations You Need to Know." Enago Academy, 2019, www.enago.com/academy/important-ethical-considerations-animal-studies/. Buller, Henry, et al. "Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability." Animals 8.6 (2018): 81. Clark, Beth, et al. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies." Food Policy 68 (2017): 112-127. Holden, John. "Of Mice and Medicine: The Ethics of Animal Research." The Irish Times, 2016, www.irishtimes.com/news/science/of-mice-and-medicine-the-ethics-of-animal-research1.2529740. Langley, Gillian R., et al. "Towards a 21st-Century Roadmap for Biomedical Research and Drug Discovery: Consensus Report and Recommendations." Drug Discovery Today, vol. 22, no.2, 2017, pp. 327-339. Mellor, David J. "Operational details of the five domains model and its key applications to the assessment and management of animal welfare." Animals 7.8 (2017): 60. Prescott, Mark J., and Katie Lidster. "Improving the quality of science through better animal welfare: the NC3Rs strategy." Lab animal 46.4 (2017): 152. Skoryatina, I. A., and S. Yu Zavalishina. "Impact of experimental development of arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia on the intravascular activity of rats' platelets." Annual Research & Review in Biology (2017): 1-9. Smith, Adrian J., et al. "PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing." Laboratory animals 52.2 (2018): 135-141.
