Stakeholder Analysis - Essay Example

Stakeholder Analysis Who are the stakeholders? The issue under question concerns use of animals for experiment and the ensuing ethical concerns. It is important to note that this debate involve different stakeholders with divergent arguments which narrow down to proponents and opponents. The core stakeholders are animal rights activists, scientists, government agencies, religious groups and general public.What do proponents of the argument gain by “winning” this argument?The argument under question emphasizes the need to abolish use of animals for scientific experiments.

The proponents of this argument constitute the animal rights activists, religious leaders and a section of the public (Cohen and Tom 69). This faction of the stakeholders feel that alternative measure of undertaking scientific experiments for medical development and other reasons are feasible. Winning in this debate has the gain of conscience satisfaction that animals should be taken care of like human beings. They seek to achieve the goal of human moral responsibility to be in charge of the other creatures.

Winning this debate also presents a desirable outcome in terms of general perception of animals as being close relatives of man and the cruelty against them are uncalled for.Why should one want to win?There are various reasons as to why the proponents would want to win. They will assert the moral obligation of man to be a fair steward of nature. The animals are considered to experience pain but lack express vocal ability to show this. It is therefore disadvantageous to them and this raises ethical concern from the perspective of humanity.

Another critical aspect of the gain concerns winning the conscience of people towards fair treatment of animals and minimizing chances of their elimination through waste control experiment. Financial support to shift to alternative experiment methods rather than sacrificing animals sounds more human and promotes ethics. Sanctity of life is likely to be upheld by the society and this will be a remarkable outcome in the entire campaign of the religious fraternity.What do opponents of this argument loseOpponents still stand by the relevance and convenience attached to use of animals for scientific experiment.

There is significant propensity of professional inadequacy should the pro-animal activists gain. Besides, alternative experiment procedures that may not use animals are seen as either expensive or inaccurate. There are several experiments that are in progress or already enlist the need for animals. In the event that use of animals is banned, the investment and commitment already put towards such experiments would go to vain and become discouraging. In essence, there has been significant medical breakthrough due to use of animals in testing drugs on man (Cohen and Tom 70).

Any attempts to substitute animals would disturb even training curriculum across the world and kill the confidence of the public on scientists. The financial aid and government spending that come with such experiments are likely to be withdrawn. The credibility of scientific experiments is a tool that opponents of this argument bank on which is likely to be lost if the other faction wins.Why should one want others to lose? It is normal human behavior to gain prominence over proof of facts. In other words, winning an argument means others must loose.

In regard to the subject under question, it is important to see that opponents stand for their ideology. Either side of the stakeholders put efforts to outdo their counterparts. Losing is an integral part of any argument and offers an insight into the facts surrounding subject of societal significance.Works citedCohen, Carl, and Tom Regan. The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001. Print.