Use of Animals for Scientific : A Debate - Research Paper Example

Use of Animals for Scientific Research There are various sides to the debate surrounding the use of animals for the purpose of scientific research. many may defend this practice citing the utilitarian perspective that would justify this practice because of the obvious benefits that it provides to humans who can then develop drugs and methods of treatment that are viable for testing upon humans. The rescue of many human lives may be seen as the reason behind the use of animals for scientific research that may provide one with a better understanding of living processes. This may ultimately lead to a better understanding of the human body and its processes. Supporters of the use of animals in scientific research cite the death of a negligible number of animals for the greater good of humanity which would be afforded better medical care that would improve the average life expectancy of people and also the quality of life that people experience. The other side of the debate is however, equally strong. Supporters of the opposite point of view argue that while looking to save more human lives in a strictly utilitarian and commercial manner, one must not lose sight of the ethical aspects that need to be looked into as a part of this issue. Whether man has the right to take the life of another organism for his own purposes is an extremely difficult question to answer and the need for the humane treatment of animals would require that the lives of innocent animals be spared, even though the resulting world may be a less comfortable one for human beings. This argument lays stress on the rights of animals to exist and on their equal rights to the resources of the world and at the very least, their very own lives. In certain cases, animal lives may be lost due to nothing more than negligence on the part of authorities and scientists. This paper shall seek to identify the questions that are a part of this issue and the multiple positions that are taken by the different parties involved in the debate. The deaths that are caused due to negligence and to test the effectiveness of weapons such as bombs are often avoidable. The history of the debate that is under discussion in this paper, according to Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette, in the modern world begins from the debates that surrounded the death of farm animals during the testing of atomic bombs in Nevada in May, 1953 (Shrader-Frechette, 1994). Litigation on this matter brought to the public consciousness the issue of animal welfare and the ethical treatment of animals. While the presence of sheep in the vicinity of a bomb test may not strictly qualify as the use of animals for scientific research, it does bring in the question of how animals are dragged into scientific activity where their death is caused by negligence of basic safety measures that would be put in place for humans. The fact that this case was brought to the court primarily because of the financial losses that were suffered on the part of the owners of the livestock proves how much society as a whole is concerned about the rights of animals. Even when there is no possibility of saving human lives, animals do get caught in a crossfire-like situation that causes loss of lives. An important reason as to why conflicts of most kinds remain unsolved is the lack of communication between the different parties that are involved in the process of debate. This gap in communication leads to various misunderstandings that can complicate an already complex issue. This can lead to various obstacles in the path of a possible solution to the problem. This is precisely the problem that prevents the rise of a possible solution to the problem that is under consideration in this paper. Tom L. Beauchamp points out this problem when he talks of the gap in communication that arises between the different partners involved in the debate about the humane treatment of animals and their use in scientific research. According to Beauchamp, these parties comprise the media, scientists and the general public which has a great influence upon the process of decision-making and on what the media chooses to report. The public often sends out an emotional response that is unable to take all facets of the discussion into account and ends up issuing untenable solutions without practical frameworks that would lead to a solution. Scientists, however, more often than not, refuse to communicate with either the media or the public and this is mostly due to indifference regarding public opinion or arrogance (Beauchamp, 2007). This is a self-defeating attitude, since it neither leads to a solution nor does it help in the smooth progress of scientific research since in the long run, the funding of projects do depend to a certain extent upon the public perception regarding issues. The rights of animals is one such issue that if left unsolved, can actually be detrimental to both science and the lives of countless animals. The need of the hour is thus, that the parties who are a part of this debate are brought to the negotiating table where a solution may be worked out. The viability of this solution may depend on how much each party is willing to compromise. To ensure smooth negotiations, members of the political establishment may step in as mediators. This would also make the transition from discussions to legislations a seamless one and one that is able to avoid too many complications. A paper on animal welfare by D. Fraser, D. M. Weary, E. A. Pajor and B. N. Milligan suggests taking into account the different adaptations that may have been made by animals due to changes in the environment. This paper goes on to suggest taking into account the subjective experiences of animals into account that presently is taken to fall outside the scope of scientific research (1997). Taking into account the needs of animals as seen in today’s world, which has a different environment than what was there a century ago is important in a discussion that seeks to ensure the safety and ethical treatment of animals while not losing track of the problems that this may cause for scientific research. A clear understanding of the need to produce medicines that would be effective in treating diseases that are presently incurable is necessary to understand the need for scientific research. At the same time, the concerns of activists and the general public which feels strongly about the rights of animals must be taken into account while policies are framed in this regard. The active cooperation of the political structure of a country is also necessary while implementing the changes that come out of discussions. Without the cooperation of the politicians and the law-making bodies of a country, the discussions are likely to produce results that would not last, since the presence of a third party that would be able to mediate the proceedings with a certain amount of authority is desirable, or even necessary, in these cases. The different sides to the debate surrounding the use of animals in scientific research are espoused by groups that have extremely different goals and interests. A common point needs to be reached that would enable either party’s side to be heard so that ways to protect the interests of either are sought. The need for negotiations is thus, paramount so that neither science nor innocent animal lives suffer. References Shrader-Frechette, Kristin Sharon. (1994). Ethics of scientific research. London: Rowman and Littlefield. Beauchamp, Tom L. (2007). The Moral Standing of Animals in Medical Research. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 20 (1-2). Retrieved February 3, 2012, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-720X.1992.tb01169.x/abstract Fraser D., Weary D.M., Pajor, E. A., Milligan, B.N. (1997). A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns. Animal Welfare. 6. Retrieved February 3, 2012, from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/Fraser1997.pdf Read More