Attitudes Toward Animal Research Among Psychology Students - Essay Example

Animals We must fight against the spirit of unconscious cruelty with which we treat the animals. Animals suffer as much as we do. True humanity does not allow us to impose such sufferings on them. It is our duty to make the whole world recognize it. Until we extend our circle of compassion to all living things, humanity will not find peace. Albert Schweitzer, The Philosophy of Civilization Abstract This essay discusses the rights of animals in the modern times. Sadly enough even in the twenty first century, we as humans are not averse to the idea of using live animals for medical research, genetic experimentation, and hunting. As if making concrete jungles upon their natural habitats was not enough we have locked them in zoo's ,made them extinct for their furs and teeth and exploited them for food.The issues regarding animal rights are just one aspect of respect for all the living organisms of Mother Earth. The blatant and abhorrent obliviousness with which we exploit animal's poses a threat not only to their survival but any further imbalance in nature will start the downfall of mankind itself. Animal rights and medical research Modern medicine owes its advancement to the lives of thousands of animals who were used to experiment the effects of these drugs upon throughout centuries. All the modern drugs and cosmetics were developed through trial and error. Animals have been used for medical testing as far back as the Greek and Roman times. Aristotle was one of the earliest academics to record the used of animals for medical research around 384-322 BC.The practice of vivisection(operating on living animals in order to gain knowledge of pathological or physiological processes) was a necessary evil of the development of medical science and surgical methods. The phenomena of animal medical research has been there for the last two centuries and was started and emphasised upon when research was being carried out upon cardiovascular and nervous systems Darwin's theory of evolution paved the way for scientists to cut up and experiment upon live animals in the name of better understanding of the human body. A movement to prevent such use of animals in the late nineteenth century was stifled by the great advances in medical research being made through animal experimentation.1In the 1950's animal research paved the way for the discovery of Kidney transplants, replacement heart valves ,polio vaccine and hip replacement surgery. In the 1960s and later on animal research produced the cure to heart disease, transplant problems and life saving systems for new born babies. With the issue of animal testing comes the question of ethics. Do we really need animal testing anymore The use of (non-human) animals by humans, particularly for medical experiments, has become a been a topic of heated debate in practical ethics for a long time now and academics debate whether and to what extent animals of various species are " conscious and self-conscious" "Consciousness refers primarily to perception, non-reflective cognition (such as beliefs) and emotion (such as feelings). In the ethical context, its most important components are feelings of pleasure and suffering, and derivatively more particular feelings, such as sexual gratification and fear, respectively. Self-consciousness refers to thinking about one's consciousness. In the ethical context, its most important component is thinking about one's beliefs and feelings, and derivatively about their implications, such as intentions."2 Peter Singer, a prominent animal rights activist has argued that "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that the suffering be counted equally with the like suffering - in so far as rough comparisons can be made - of any other being."3 He goes on to state furthermore that , The claim that self-conscious beings are entitled to prior consideration is compatible with the principle of equal consideration of interests if it amounts to no more than the claim that something that happens to self-conscious beings can be contrary to their interests while similar events would not be contrary to the interests of beings who were not self-conscious. 4 International practice and legislations The standards and legislations regulating or restricting vary from country to country and are not very detailed either. These regulations are often loosely made and have done little to prevent the trafficking and poaching on innocent animals. Curiously enough the law discriminates between animal medical research and scientific research and doesn't define whether it includes insects of vertebrates. The European Union has played its part by restricting the use of animals for experimentation as it has strengthened the law relating to animal testing in the production of cosmetics. However the French cosmetics industry has strongly opposed this because after 2009, "the cosmetics industry throughout the EU will no longer be allowed to carry out experiments on animals or to market products developed using animal experiments if alternative methods exist. And from 2013, the marketing of cosmetics developed using animal experiments will be prohibited even if there are no alternative methods available."5 Today around 38,000 animals are killed in cosmetics testing in the EU every year. This legislation should have been a welcome reminder in the light of cosmetics bans already having been imposed in several EU countries, including Britain, but France was forced to challenge the directive recently at the ECJ under huge pressure from its cosmetics industry. . The French argued that the ban was too severe, incompatible with World Trade rules, that its wording was ambiguous and that it would damage European business interests. French officials also claimed that the resulting improvement in animal welfare would be 'extremely small' and that it would be 'likely to result in the circulation of products presenting significant risks to human health'.6 Animal rights are also being violated even during teaching in medical research laboratories where they are abused through genetic manipulation, surgery or injections to model human conditions. It has also been pointed out that animal data may not be as accurate as it seems. An interesting example is from the case of lung cancer studies, where it had been suggested that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer. Nevertheless all the animal experiments failed to show the harm of tobacco and as a result no steps were taken to ban or restrict the use of tobacco. Another mishap occurred during polio research when experiments on apes led to the belief that polio was an infectious disease entering through the windpipe, even though its real mode of attack was through digestive organs. Therefore there are not just ethical concerns regarding the use of animals for testing. Animals and humans are very different in terms of genetics and cellular setup.It can argued that due to these vast differences the results if animal testing may actually be misleading. In the matter of ethical considerations in animal abuse and the related welfare issues many academics have moved towards the protection and conservation of sea animals as well.(Arlinghaus 2007).The issue has gained much importance due its increasing prominence in political agendas and "animal welfare has come to include a range of disciplines including behavioural ecology, evolution, neuroscience, genetics, cognitive science and even consciousness studies Animal welfare has recently moved towards commercial and recreational activities that exploit fish populations ."(Arlinghaus 2007). Ecologists and Animal rights activists are also promoting their "feelings-based approach to fish welfare,' and have suggested that recreational fishing should be banned.(Arlinghaus 2007) Inhuman treatment of farm animals Another issue of much concern is how animals are being exploited and abused on farms.They are made to live artificial lives and this , industrial style animal breeding ignores their welfare. These animals are "bred" in a certain artificial way to increase their milk and meat output.This genetic manipulation does not end here.These animals are fed chemically tainted food to make them more productive. They are confined to large barns that crowd animals with inhumane conditions.They are constantly given drug inputs and the farms have degraded themselves to animal factories.Infact the whole plight of these animals is so alarming that one would shudder just to think of it. The figure below shows the dependence of the US economy on its farms7 The facts about the large scale abuse being carried out on these farms are very disturbing, "Millions of broiler chickens are housed in industrial barns containing up to 25,000 birds. Birds are bred to have such heavy breasts that many are unable to stand, and die of thirst because they are unable to reach water. of dairy cows are confined in concrete encased feedlots. To artificially boost milk production, cows are often injected with hormones that cause crippling loss of bone mass and produce painful infections. Animals are milked by mechanical devices as many as three times each day. Hogs are confined by the thousands in industrial barns which force them to spend their lives in tight metal pens, often standing painfully on slated concrete floors, breathing almost poisonous levels of ammonia and hydrogen sulphide from the manure stored under their pens. .Egg laying hens are confined by the millions in giant industrial barns, living in tight metal cages, called "battery cages" stacked one atop another. Hens are forced to artificially molt (lose their feathers) through systematic starvation. ..".8 The question is what has the government done in this regard In 1960 The Humane Slaughter Act was passed. However to date it has neither been followed nor enforced. The US Department of Agriculture routinely ignores it and the act itself does not provide for any criminal offences in this regard9. This is yet another ugly face of the corporate America which like the fashion and science industry, does not want to consider the plight of animals. Such a production system is cruel and inhumane at its very best and is dangerous in many respects . "And a production system that treats animals inhumanely also tends to enslave farmers in unfair production contracts, threatens public health through manure runoff and antibiotic use, impoverishes rural communities through tax subsidies and denial of other economic development possibilities. Animal factories are corporate-controlled monoculture, in which all of the federal largesse goes out of the community, and all efforts are focused on industrial livestock production, eliminating any other economic enterprises."10 . It can be seen that the issues involved in the debate over the ethics of animal treatment are complex. This requires a largely balancing exercise towards policies which will be beneficial to both people and other animals in the long run. Where on the one hand the scientists should listen to their conscience during harsh animal testing the animal rights activists should avoid illegal and anarchical means and methods of opposing violations of human rights.The saner viewpoint comes from activists, who believe in the responsibility of humans in acting reasonably in this regard. Charles R. Magel once said, Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. The graph below shows a recent estimate of pet abuse statistics,11This graph alone shows the plight of our animal friends in the US. The graph below shows number of reported abuse cases shown by age group, starting with under 10 years old . Conclusion The use of illegal activity by animal activists has sparked the debate whether all the anarchy is really worth it.The illegal actions of breaking into laboratories to liberate animals in dire conditions are indeed a noble(but illegal) and are of direct benefit to the society. The use of media publicity and star appeal has also heavily impacted the animal rights movement in positive ways. Academics have argued that ,if such activities distance the public from the noble animal cause then they should be avoided. It has to be remembered that the animal activists go through a large amount of trouble to act as information providers. This is because there are ".institutional barriers between the public and industries that exploit animals which cause the public to base consumption and political decisions on very limited information. Often the only information available to the public has its origins in illegal activity. Animal liberationist activity plays an important role in bringing this information to the public-a role that has often been overlooked and that is explored further here."12 According to Joshua Frank,an impact can be made upon the market by promoting humanely framed products which will be the people's choices based on their ethical preferences.However multinationals should not be able to make a business out of selling ethical products.The "Right to Know" movement provides people the right internationally to ask their goverments to disclose sensitive information about the corporations involved in the abuse of animals. On a bleak note I would like to conclude that as humans we have indeed degraded into merciless and selfish creatures.It is all very well that the animal rights activists are condemned as anarchists,but they are seeking to raise awareness in the media and amongst people and they should be appreciated for that. I think George Orwell summed up the situation very nicely in his famous book, The Animal Farm when he said, "Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the animals". Nevertheless we need to find a balance-a balance within ourselves and a balance within the animal research institution and in our own daily lives. We should realise that we share the earth with our animal friends ,rather than owning them and the earth itself.Promoting better animals rights is only a matter of a change in our attitudes as a whole and not just an activity for a few lobbyists or animal activists.It is our collective responsibility. _____________________________________________________________ References 1. J. F. Navarr. (2001) Attitudes Toward Animal Research Among Psychology Students In Spain. Psychological Reports89: 2. S. Plous. (1996) Attitudes Toward The Use Of Animals In Psychological Research And Education:. Results From A National Survey Of Psychology Majors. Psychological Science7:6, 352-358 3. Roger E. Ulrich. (1992) Animal Research: A Reflective Analysis. Psychological Science3:6, 384-386 4. Edwin A. Locke, Chair. (1992) There Can Be No Balance Between Animal And Human Rights. Psychological Science3:2, 143-143 5. Neal E. Miller. (1991) Commentary On Ulrich: Need To Check Truthfulness Of Statements By Opponents Of Animal Research. Psychological Science2:6, 422-424 6. Joshua Frank ,The Role of Radical Animal Activists as Information Providers to Consumers 7. Abraham Rudnick(2007) Other-Consciousness and the Use of Animals as Illustrated in Medical Experiments Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (2Volume 24 Issue 2 Page 202-208, May 2007 8. P. Singer, Practical Ethics, Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 57. 9. Arlinghaus, Steven J. Cooke, Alexander Schwab, Ian G. Cowx (2007) Fish welfare: a challenge to the feelings-based approach, with implications for recreational fishing _____________________________________________________________________ Read More