Animal Testing
The use of animals in scientific and medical research is a subject about which
people hold strongly contrasting views. It is a debate which elicits very strong
emotions: animal rights activists have resorted to trespass, violence, death
threats and hunger strikes in their mission to end this practice. In this essay I
will consider both sides of the argument.
Those for experiments on animals argue that it is a means to greater ends.
With this view, the reduction of human suffering or death is our first priority
and the prevention of animal suffering or death is secondary to that.
Therefore, if there is a likelihood that an experiment will result in an important
medical breakthrough that will reduce human suffering and death, then it is
justifiable to allow animal suffering.
In addition to this, it may be argued that in practice it is possible to keep
animal suffering to an absolute minimum. Those conducting research should
aspire to the highest levels of animal welfare in their laboratories, using
anaesthetic wherever possible and keeping animals in clean, comfortable,
and healthy conditions. Indeed, the Animals Act (1986) enforces the premise
that researchers must use those animals that have the lowest level of
sensitivity to pain and experiments must minimise the level of pain that can
occur (Murnaghan, 2010). Thus, there is an argument that it is possible to
experiment on animals without being cruel to animals.
Moreover, past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be
made in medicine by experimenting on animals. Throughout the 20 th century,
for example, research that used live animals resulted in several medical
advances such as: antibiotics like penicillin, the whooping cough vaccine and
organ transplant techniques (Coalition for Medical Research, 2007). It may
be argued, therefore, that banning animal experiments may have a negative
effect on advances in modern medicine.
On the other hand, there are several arguments against animal testing. For
instance, it may be argued that animals have the right to be treated as beings
of value in themselves, not as the means to human ends. Consequently,
animals should never be experimented upon whatever the potential gains for
humanity. Under this view, to inflict pain, suffering and death on animals is
not acceptable, whatever the supposed benefits.
Also, there is evidence that animals are not routinely treated well by animal
experimenters.
The animal rights organisation, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA), estimate that an animal dies in a European
laboratory every three seconds. In addition to this, there is evidence that
animals are often not adequately anaesthetised and are abused by handlers
and experimenters (PETA, undated). The argument that they are routinely
treated in a humane manner is inaccurate and idealistic.
Finally, although some argue that medical breakthroughs justify animal
experimentation, such achievements may be overstated. There have been a
catalogue of errors and failures in animal testing, which its advocates fail to
recognise. For example, as many as half the drugs approved in the United
Kingdom after animal testing have subsequently had to be withdrawn because
of harmful side-effects (Animal Aid, undated). Thus, the failures of animal
testing overshadow any evidence of its success.
In conclusion, I accept that animal experiments may benefit humanity but
believe that animals have a right to be free from unnecessary pain and
suffering. Although it may be possible to conduct experiments in a humane
manner, it is clear that this cannot be ensured at all times. Furthermore, there
are clear failures in using the results of animal testing which make it difficult to
argue that medical advances justify such cruelty. Thus, I believe it is time to
ban experimenting on animals and invest in developing other methods of
testing drugs and medical procedures.
Bibliography
Animal Aid, Killing Animals and Humans,
<http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/730/>
[accessed 4 Mar. 2012]
Coalition for Medical Research, Medical Advances and Animal Research,
<http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/resources/document_library
/download_document/?document_id=8 >[accessed 4 Mar. 2012]
Murnagahn, Ian, Local Laws on Animal Testing,
<http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/local-laws-animal-testing.html>
[accessed 4 Mar. 2012]
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Animals Are Not Ours to
Experiment On < http://www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-are-not-ours-toexperiment-on> [accessed 4 Mar. 2012]
TASK 1
Read the example and answer the questions:
1. How is the essay structured?
Paragraph 1:
introduction
Paragraph 2-4:
________________
Paragraph 5-7:
________________
Paragraph 8:
conclusion
2. How does the writer show where their evidence is sourced from? Why is it
necessary to do this?
3. How many arguments does the writer give for and against the topic?
4. When does the writer state their opinion on the topic?
TASK 2
Put the linking words into the appropriate columns in the table
secondly, yet, on the other hand, unquestionably, thus, furthermore,
likewise, in addition, similarly, therefore, nevertheless, also, however,
moreover, consequently, without question, although, in conclusion,
conversely, without doubt, hence, as a result
same line of
conclusion /
definite
thought
summary
statement
contrasting idea