The Role of Informing the Public - Essay Example

Case Against the Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Introduction Scientists are tasked with the duty of keeping the public informed; the role of informing the public is legitimate because social policies are supposed to be based on, and developed on the platforms of facts and rational considerations to all areas touched by the policies (Dean, 2009). The issues that need to be clarified to the members of the public include those related to climate change; those related to the objectives of the space program; those related to the conservation of endangered animal and plant species and those related to the use of animals or embryonic stem cells in biomedical research (Bailey, 2005). Policy makers as well as the public deserve to get adequate information on the scientific justifications behind the work of scientists, and also the moral justifications for their work, particularly in the cases that it raises moral questions (Smith, 2009). This paper will present a case against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research, with reference to pertinent ethical and scientific arguments. Context of study and background of the case against the practice There is not a time, in the past, when a very honest and open debate regarding the scientific experimentation that uses animals was more important. A discourse about the use of animals in scientific experimentations is highly called for, taking into account that there are many moral, ethical and social dilemmas surrounding the use of animals in scientific experimentation (Conn and Parker, 2008). Through this paper, the author will present the case against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical experimentation, with the aim of informing the public about the issues that need to be explored before the practice is legalized or allowed to continue. The criticisms leveled against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research are grounded on a variety of ethical and scientific arguments. Some of the criticisms presented against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research range from those questioning the validity of the scientific research to the advancement of human medical practices, to those questioning the ethical nature of such research. The arguments that invalidate the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical experimentation The arguments based on the ethics of animal research The first argument against the administration of biomedical research using animals is that the use of animals has remained debatable, with regards to whether it is ethically permissible and allowable (Rollin, 2006). This argument is supported by the moral philosophers that have presented moral/ethical issues that cannot dismissed without a good reason. It is important to take into account that the moral boundaries defining relations are dynamic, therefore it is important to give solid justifications as to whether sacrificing the lives of animals is ethically acceptable. Further, the moral justification to the use of animals for medical research should also be accompanies by proof, showing that the field of medicine is working on developing the alternatives to take the place of animals in biomedical research. The second argument against the use of animals for biomedical research is related to the question of the moral status of animals in society, and whether their rights can render their use in medical research wrongful (Cohen, 1986). The positions presented in defense of the use of animals in biomedical research include that animals do not have rights, because they are not in a position to engage the community as some among its autonomous members. However, it is important to note that, irrespective of the fact that an animal cannot recognize the interests of a human being or take responsibility for its actions, its nature does not prevent them from having a moral standing in society (Warren, 2000). The moral standing of animals can be justified using the fact that a living thing is bestowed with a moral status, as long as the people within the community are morally obliged to take its interests into account, irrespective of whether they assume utility in exchange. Further, animals, in a similar manner as humans are considered to have interests related to wellbeing, life and freedom; that bestows a moral status and potential for regard upon them. Taking the position into account, irrespective of the fact that some members of society believe that animals do not have a moral status, their life and the ability to experience pain offers them a moral status almost as weighty as that of people (Francione, 2000). This argument, as a result, demonstrates that the use of animals in biomedical research should take into account that they hold as much rights to life and freedom as humans, which proves that using them should be stopped. From an ethical/ moral point of view the role of man in society is that of a steward, which requires them to take the responsibility of protecting the environment and animals. However, similar to the treatment received by the animals subjected to biomedical research, humans have been the major destroyers of the environment and animal life. The effects of man’s disregard include that some animal species and some ecosystems have been threatened, and some have been led to extinction. This very relationship between humans and animals, where man is supposed to play the role of a steward should prevent him from using animals for biomedical studies, and instead to look for alternative ways of getting the same results. This argument against the use of animals as specimen for biomedical research serves to show that man will face the choice of protecting the environment, which covers animals, or will take an active role of destroying the environment that sustains his well-being. The scientific arguments against the administration of animal biomedical research The first argument against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research is that animal research presents a low success rate. The scientists in support of this argument do not make the assertion that animal research has never been beneficial, but that the success rate resulting from it is very low (Shanks and Greek, 2009). The low success rate of animal research undermines its validity as a productive source of the medical information to guide scientists and medical personnel in their search for cures for human diseases (Greek and Greek, 2010). The low success rates of nonhuman biomedical research studies include that, while contributing important information to the science of medicine, many of the scientific studies are not applicable to human medical practice. Further, many of the studies lack usability and justifiability, taking into account that many attempts are not predictive of the human situation (Bailey, 2005). The unending failures of these studies, due to the incompatibility of the animals used with humans, makes the biomedical research done on animals unreliable and unpredictable. There second argument against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research is that, the practice does not benefit humans. The position maintained is that the information generated through animal research cannot be used to improve the medical practices used with humans (Pound et al., 2004). The principle underlying this position is that researching the diseases of animals and their response to different chemicals, the biomedical studies will at the end yield cures for the animals and not humans (Greek, 2010). In simple terms, the justification of the argument that animal research does not benefit humans is that the physiology of humans and that of animals are different. The differences in the physiological processes of humans and animals render the results of the research not applicable to the illnesses of humans (DeGrazia, Cohen and Regan, 2003). More importantly, it is important to take into account that the experimenters that use animals insist on making the public believe that stopping the experimentation done on animals would lead to the death of sick people (Michael and Birke, 1994). Further, biomedical experimentation using nonhuman animals leads to the less of lives – human and animal – and expensive resources as the scientist attempt to infect animals with diseases that they cannot contract (Hajar, 2011). In many experimentation cases, the diseases under study are those that cannot affect animals, which translates to the wastage of time and resources. The third argument against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research is that the contribution of animal research to the field of medicine is irrefutable, but that its contribution to human medical practice may not be relevant presently (Shanks and Greek, 2009). This claim is based on the fact that many of the medical breakthroughs made through animal biomedical studies were done decades ago and that the use of animal research may not be valid anymore (Greek and Greek, 2010). The breakthroughs made through animal research include the exploration of the circulatory, respiratory, and digestive systems, which has been very helpful in advancing the medical practice administered to humans until to date. The irrelevance of nonhuman animal research in advancing human medical practice is evident from the complexity of the human problems requiring medical solutions, including those related to cancer among other diseases. The irrelevance of nonhuman animal research is caused by the fact that there is nothing, yet to be learnt about the basic biological processes of animals, which can be applied to advance human medical practice. In simpler terms, the importance of nonhuman animal research has been exhausted, of the basic results it could offer, which makes it a waste of time and resources. The fourth argument against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research is that animal medical models are not predictive of the responses of human subjects. This argument is based on the fact that it is impossible to model the reality of human disease through the use of animal subjects. This is the case, because the treatments that are developed when using animal subjects do not translate the same results among humans. Prediction is one of the fundamental goals of medical research, but the fact that all studies done using animals are not done to model the progress of disease among humans proves that such biomedical research may be grossly useless. This argument holds true, taking into account that predictions are only useful during the cases where the theories in question can be tested empirically. However, in the case of using nonhuman animal research to address the medical problems of humans is similar to the case of using wrong predictions to develop new theories (Shanks and Greek, 2009). The fact that the predictions are false implies that the theory developed using it will also be false. Proving that the predictions and the theories developed from such biomedical studies calls for the formulation of a new one based on the knowledge and the data that was used in proving that the previous one was false. The fifth argument against the use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research is that alternatives to animal research have already been found. This argument is based on the fact that many technological breakthroughs with the potential of replacing the use of animals have been found and experimentally investigated (Singer, 1990). Some of these breakthroughs include that medical computer simulations have been made advanced to the extent that they can replace the use of animals in biomedical studies. The second breakthrough believed to possess the potential of replacing the use of animals for biomedical experiments is the role of functional magnetic resonance in studying the functions of the brain, which has conventionally been studied using the electrophysiological exploration of animals brains (McMahan, 2003). This argument against the use of animals in biomedical research stands, irrespective of the fact that some scholars, including Greek (2010) maintain that scientists rely on animals due to the unpredictability of the outcomes that can yield from the newly discovered alternatives. Conclusion Scientists hold the responsibility of informing the public about the rationales underlying policies and also about the facts and the rational accounts incorporated into policy formulation. Some of the issues that scientists are supposed to keep the public informed about include environmental protection and the use of animals in biomedical research. This paper presented the arguments that can be used to oppose the use of animals for biomedical research. Some of the arguments are based on ethical/ moral grounds and others are scientific in nature. The arguments against the use of animals for biomedical research include that using animals is not ethical; the moral status of animals qualifies them from being used, and the protective role supposed to be played by man should be enough to make them stop using animals for biomedical research. From a scientific point of view, the reasons against the use of animals for biomedical studies include that the studies using animals have a low success rate; the practice of biomedical research does not benefit humans and that the contribution of animals to the field of medicine is not relevant anymore. Other arguments against the use of animals in biomedical research include that the studies are not predictive of the relationships between humans and disease and alternatives to the use of animals have already been discovered. Reference List Bailey, J., 2005. The use of nonhuman animals in biomedical research is that animal research presents a low success rate. Biogenic Amines, 19(4-6), pp. 235–255. Cohen, C., 1986. The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. New Engl J Med, 315, pp. 865–70. Conn, P. M. and Parker, J.V., 2008. The animal research war. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Dean, C., 2009. Am I making myself clear? A scientist’s guide to talking to the public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DeGrazia, D., Cohen, C. and Regan, T., 2003. The animal rights debate. Ethics, 113, pp. 692– 4. Francione, G. L., 2000. Introduction to animal rights: your child or the dog? Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Greek, C.R., 2010. The fruits of human-based research. [Online]. Available at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/the-fruits-of-human-based-research [Accessed 24 April 2014]. Greek, C.R., 2010. Rules of engagement. [Online]. Available at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rules-of-engagement [Accessed 24 April 2014]. Greek, R. and Greek, J., 2010. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philos Ethics Humanit Med, 5, pp. 14. Hajar, R., 2011. Animal Testing and Medicine. Heart Views, 12(1), pp. 42. McMahan, J., 2003. The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. New York: Oxford University Press. Michael, M. and Birke, L., 1994. Accounting for Animal Experiments: Identity and Disreputable “Others”. Science Technology Human Values, 19(2), pp. 189-204. Pound, P., Ebrahim, S., Sandercock, P., Bracken, M. B., Roberts, I. & Group, R. A. T. S. 2004. Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 328, pp. 514. Regan, T., 2004. Empty cages: facing the challenge of animal rights. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Rollin, B.E., 2006. Animal rights & human morality. Amherst (NY): Prometheus Books. Shanks, N., 2009. Greek CR. Animal models in light of evolution. Boca Raton (FL): Brown Walker Press. Shanks, N. and Greek, C. R., 2009. Animal models in light of evolution. Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press. Singer, P., 1990. Animal liberation. New York: New York Review of Books. Smith, W.J., 2009. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy: the human cost of the animal rights movement. New York: Encounter Books. Taylor, A, and Burbidge, J.W., 2009. Animals & ethics: an overview of the philosophical debate. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press. Warren, M.A., 2000. Moral status: obligations to persons and other living things (issues in biomedical ethics). New York: Oxford University Press. Read More