The Use of Animals in Medical Research - Essay Example

Paper Outline

• Introduction
• Attention Grabber: Approximately 40% of research by National Institute of Health uses animals.
• Use of animals in medical research for cancers, and other terminal diseases.
• Animal research protects human beings from risky scientific practices,
• It is unethical and inhumane to use animals for medical research.
• Thesis: It is justifiable to use animals for medical research such finding cure for cancer and other terminal diseases.
• Pro Position
• Medical Researchers support animal research
• Helps in understanding the disease and its effects.
• Protection of human lives.
• It is easier to find animals for research.
• Ethicist and philosophers support for animal research
• Animals are not part of a moral community.
• The procedures are done in a humane manner.
• It is beneficial to humanity.
• Con Position
• Animal rights activists against animal research.
• Animals have a moral status.
• Existence of laws that protect animals against inhumane treatment.
• Medical researchers against animal research.
• Animals have different genetic makeup with that of humans.
• Rates of failure are high.
• Conclusion

Animals and Medical Research

Introduction:

Attention Grabber: The national institute of health is a federal government agency responsible for conducting medical research. For purposes of meeting their objectives, almost all departments of the NIH normally use animals for their research. For instance, in 2010, approximately 40% of medical research conducted by NIH used animals for this purposes (Bush, 2016).

The use of animals in medical research is becoming popular because of the benefits that scientists are able to derive from them. Note that, medications such as HIV Treatments, insulin, organ transplantations have been made possible because of the use of animals for research. On this note, people who support the use of animals for research argue that it is an effective method of research and coming up with medications that can be used on an individual. They believe that it is more risky to use untested drug on a person, since it can result to death. Nonetheless, those who argue against the use of animals in medical research cite factors such as it is unethical and inhumane. They believe that animals, just like human beings have a right, and they must be protected.

This paper looks at whether animals should be used in medical research. There will be a need of presenting alternative positions and arguments about this topic: thereafter concluding with the most justifiable conclusion on the subject of this paper. From this paper, the main argument that will be contained in it is the notion that, the use of animals to find cure for cancer and other terminal diseases is justifiable and acceptable.

Pro Position:

Medical Researchers support Animal Research

Scientists and medical researchers are some of the people who support the use of animals in medical research. One of the reasons that make them to support the use of these animals is based on the fact that they need to understand the particular healthcare problem, before coming up with an effective treatment that can be used to treat the disease under consideration. Note that, some health problems and ailments are very complex, and they can only be studied in an efficient manner if they in a living organisms.

Note that, it may be impractical for medical researchers to study these healthcare problems in human beings, because of the risks associated with such a study. For instance, chances of death may be very high, and medical researchers may find it difficult to find human population that could be used in such studies (McGonigle & Ruggeri, 2014). Obviously, this is because of the high human costs that may emanate from such a study. It is ethically wrong to expose human beings to a scientific process that involves the study of diseases. Moreover, scientists support the use of animals because of their biological similarity with that of human beings.

They are vulnerable to the same health problems that human beings face, and it is easier to study them, because of the shorter life cycle they have, when compared to that of a human being. On this note, it is possible to study the animals throughout its lifespan, to that of its generations. Furthermore, scientists have the capability of controlling the environment surrounding that of the environment. This includes lightning, the kind of diet that the animal feeds on and its temperature (Ter Riet & Bouter, 2016). This is a very difficult feet to achieve when you are using people for purposes of carrying out medical research. You cannot control the environment in which people are living; thus, it may be difficult to come up with an accurate solution for a research that begins by the use of people.

Some of the animals that are widely used for purposes of carrying out medical research are mice and rodents. These animals are inexpensive, and scientists are always able to buy them in large quantities for purposes of their research. In fact, majority of rodents that are used for purposes of research are inbred. This means that they are all identical in nature, and is beneficial for research because the results would be uniform. During medical research, scientists normally insist that the population used for purposes of research to be identical and similar. This is an irreducible minimum. Apart from the capability of medical researchers to easily have an access to rodents for research purposes, the character of these animals is another reason that makes it attractive to scientists to use them (Thulin et al, 2014). Mice have a mild temper and they are docile. This means that it is easier for medical researchers to handle them, during the process of research. Note that, rats are more aggressive and difficult to handle, when compared to other rodents such as mice. Moreover, there are certain types of rodents that do not have an immune system; thus, they can play an important role during research that involves malignant and normal human tissue research.

Ethicists and Philosophers support Animal Research:

The use of animals for medical research purposes is gaining acceptance amongst philosophers and ethicists. Take for the example the concept of moral community that is advocated for by philosophers and ethicists. This concept of moral community refers to a group of people, who share the same characteristics and traits. On this note, these people have particular responsibilities and enjoy certain rights. Take for example human beings. People enjoy some basic human rights that are universal and acceptable. These rights include the right to life, to expression and association. Note that, in as much as this notion of moral community can be applicable to animals, on most occasions they are excluded. This is because animals do not have cognitive ability and capability that is comparable to that of human beings, and they cannot make a rational choice to pursue a specific goal.

Basing on these facts, it is not possible to include animals as part of a moral community. On this note, human beings have limited obligation to the animals concerned, since they will not enjoy the universal rights that are enjoyed by humanity. It is therefore practical to argue that if animals do not enjoy the universal rights enjoyed by humanity, it is ethical to use them for purposes of carrying out medical research (Joffe et al., 2014). Basing on this philosophical concept of moral community, it is acceptable for scientists to use animals for research because they are not on the same standard as human beings. Furthermore, using human beings for medical research is unacceptable and unethical, because it is a breach of their universal rights to life, access to good health services, etc.

Another important ethical issue that helps in supporting the use of animals for research is based on two factors. One factor is whether the procedure used in experimenting on animals minimizes their sufferings, and if the benefits from the experiments will be beneficial to animals. Regarding the procedure used for conducting medical research, the American Psychological Association has established guidelines that guide scientists on the most humane procedures to use while carrying out their experiments (Pound & Bracken, 2014). The association insists that use of procedures that will make the animal to be stressed or to experience extreme pain is unacceptable. Moreover, the procedures used must conform to the federal rules and guidelines of medical research that involves the use of animals. This is an indication that scientists always follow particular guidelines that aim at treating animals in a humane manner while conducting research. Furthermore, it is an obvious fact that the results of the study would be beneficial to human beings. It is therefore ethical to use them for research.

Con Position

Animal Rights Advocates against Animal Research

An important factor that motivates animal rights advocates in criticizing the use of animals for research centers on whether animals have a moral status. It is a common belief that animals have some elements of a moral status, in as much as it is not that high when compared to that of human beings. The existence of moral status for animals is one of the reasons that animal rights advocates cite, when advocating against an abuse of animals. Note that, the recognition of the moral rights of an individual is a plus to the current society, and this is depicted with the emergence of laws aimed at protecting animals, and ensuring that they are well catered for and taken care of. A good example is the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (Inoue, Shineha & Yashiro, 2016). This is a federal law that recognizes that animals also have a right, and thus it regulates the manner which they are treated. Nevertheless, the existence of these laws does not mean that animals have the same status as human beings. It only recognizes the need of protecting these animals from inhumane treatment and unnecessary killings; thus, animal rights advocates argue that animal research is unethical, since it exposes them to sufferings.

Medical Researchers against Animal Research

There are a number of factors that make some medical researchers to criticize the use of animals in research. One notion is the fact that animals and human beings have different genetic makeup, thus, a medication that may work on animals may not work on human beings. A good example is aspirin. In as much as aspirin may be useful in the prevention of blood clotting, it has some adverse effects on animals. For instance, research indicates that aspirin causes birth defects to mice and monkeys, and it can kill cats. On this note, using animals on research that involves aspirin may make it difficult for medical researchers to get accurate results that can be relied on to treat human beings.

Another reason for criticizing the use of animals for research, specifically for cancer research is the high rate of failure that characterizes these researches. For instance, since 1971, the government and donors have spent billions of dollars on cancer research. Nevertheless, in a survey carried out in 2003 to 2011, results indicate that 93% of the drugs developed normally fail, when they are in the first phase of their human trials. This is despite successfully passing the animal trials (Bush, 2016). From this example, we are able to learn that animals have different genetic makeup to that of human beings, and if a drug is successful in animals, it is not a guarantee that it will be successful on human beings. Basing on these facts, they strongly oppose the use of animals in medical/cancer research.

Conclusion

Finally, the use of animals in medical research, particularly, researching on cancer is ethical, moral and acceptable. Proponents of using animals in research have provided a satisfactory reason why it is acceptable. For instance, animals do not have the same cognitive capability with that of human beings, and they cannot make a rational choice. On this note, they cannot belong to the same moral community with that of human beings, thus, it is justifiable to use them in research. Moreover, there are guidelines and [procedures put in place aimed at ensuring that animals are not treated in a manner that is inhumane and painful. These guidelines are established by the American Psychological Association, and the Animal Welfare Act. Moreover, when you look at the cons of animal research, it is possible to denote that the information provided is not convincing. For instance, animal rights advocates are wrong when they assert that animals have the same rights as men. They do not, because their incapability to make rationale choices and lack of proper cognitive capabilities. Moreover, it is beneficial for human beings, when animals are used for research, because the alternative would be humans.