The Ethics Aspects Of Animal Testing - Research Paper Example

The Ethics Aspects Of Animal Testing Introduction Since time immemorial, humans have lived in symbiotic relationship with animals. Except for the historical period in time when the first generations of mankind have been predominantly known as hunters, man has firmly acknowledged that animals have other benefits to human than to be raised for livestock or food. However, in contemporary times, when the need to pursue medical researches and studies existed; that require drugs or procedures to be tested, animals were deemed the most effective tools that would achieve the needed results from medical research. There are groups and advocates for animal rights who openly oppose animal testing for whatever reasons. On the other hand, at the end of the spectrum, the supporting group composed mainly of scientists, biomedical researchers, and other researchers in the fields of psychology, military, and space research have asserted that animal testing is inevitable since it is one of the most effective and viable techniques for medical advancement. Regardless of the arguments, the animals being subjected to experimentation and tests have evidently undergone great amounts of pains and undue distress. As such, whatever ends or benefits that have been ultimately derived came as a result of cruelty imposed on these helpless animals. Although one initially believed that animal testing is unethical and should never be undertaken; there are sound ethical frameworks that actually justify animal experimentation. Animal Testing Is Unethical Animal testing is simply defined as “the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs” (animal testing 1). As such, the purpose of conducting experiments on animals include testing on the efficacy of medicines or drugs, for safety of using cosmetics, and for general goals such as “models in biological and medical research to study human disease, injury, development, psychology, and anatomy and physiology” (Animal Research Background par. 1). One of the reasons why animal testing is strongly believed to be unethical is relayed by Tom Regan, a philosopher who contended that “animals cannot be experimented on, because they are not merely means to an end” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). It has always been regarded that however worthy the ends are, if the means have been instigated unjustly through inflicting pain or doing some immoral act; then, the ends are not justified. Likewise, another rationale that supports animal testing as unethical is the argument that animals have rights, just like humans, and as such, subjecting them to undue pain and distress are clear violations of their rights. Regan admonished that “all humans and most animals have inherent rights, which he describes as invisible “no trespassing” signs hung around their necks. They state that our bodies may not be transgressed, no matter how much good might thereby result” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). The view of Regan was actually supported by other animal rights groups who relayed that “animals too have these sort of rights, and that they should never be sacrificed under the auspices of the greater good, either as food or as the subjects of medical experimentation” (Branham, 2005, par. 3). Through the arguments that revealed that animals have rights and that the experimentation done, however, beneficial to humans, causes significant pain on animals make the very act unethical. Animal Testing is Justified Supporters of animal experimentations and testing have revealed responded to Regan’s assertion by refuting the contention that animals have rights. One philosopher, Carl Cohen, was noted to aver that “rights are not inherent: they arise from implicit contracts among members of society, and they imply duties. Because animals cannot reciprocate such duties, they cannot have right” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 87). Using this conceptual framework, some identified animals were reported actually not to be included from the Animal Welfare Act: “purpose-bred birds, rats, and mice, as well as fish and other cold-blooded animals, make up the vast majority of the animals used in research (over 90 percent)” [Ani131]. From the list, it could be deduced that these types of animals could definitely have reciprocated; much more, even contested on what testing or experimentations are to be conducted on them. More importantly, scientists and researchers have rationalized that animal testing has revolutionized medical research. These supporters acknowledged that the unprecedented pace in medical discoveries on drugs and other medical applications could not have been made possible without testing their safety and efficacy on animals. It was asserted that “no responsible scientist wants to use animals or cause them unnecessary suffering if it can be avoided, and therefore scientists accept controls on the use of animals in research. More generally, the bioscience community accepts that animals should be used for research only within an ethical framework” [Fes07]. Using the ethical framework, there have been principles and guidelines that were explicitly designed to ensure that animal experimentation and testing are to be conducted with utmost diligence and takes into consideration the conditions that limit suffering, pain or undue distress during the procedure. These guidelines have been known as the 3Rs: “replacement of animals by in vitro, or test-tube, methods; reduction of their numbers by means of statistical techniques; and refinement of the experiment so as to cause less suffering” (Mukerjee, 1997, p. 89). Analysis After weighing the arguments and in conjunction with discovering that principles and conditions for ensuring that testing and experimentation are conducted within ethical framework, one is led to believe that there are valid grounds to support the validity of animal testing. The initial contention that animal testing is unethical and should never be conducted has been relayed since the premise was that no proper ethical framework was still being instituted to ensure that pain, suffering and distress have not been inflicted. There are really two opposing extremists views: those who oppose animal testing asserts that no animals should ever be subjected to experimentation for whatever purpose. On the other end, the supporting group contents that animal testing is justified and valid as long as they are undertaken within ethical standards through the 3Rs. One hereby believes that there is still a middle ground: that animal testing and experimentation could only be conducted within the ethical framework at if all other alternative techniques have been exhausted. According to the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, there are alternative to animal testing; which was illumined to be associated with the 3Rs. Likewise, the findings revealed that “alternative test methods that are developed to reduce or replace animal experiments are typically based on either in vitro systems or on computer-based models” [Que13]. As such, one’s recommendation is to exhaust these alternatives to animal testing before resorting to actual use of animals for experimentation only within the justifiable purpose of saving lives. Conclusion The current discourse has aptly presented arguments that support the view that animal testing is unethical and the contention that it is ethically justified. Those who opposed animal testing asserted that animals allegedly have rights, just like human beings and that these experiments are merely means that do not actually justify the ends. On the contrary, there were supporters of animal testing who acknowledged that the process would never have to be undertaken without due consideration for ethical frameworks, including the 3Rs and the use of alternative methods. With that, one is finally convinced that the application of sound ethical frameworks through the 3Rs in conjunction with exhausting alternative methods ultimately justify animal testing. Works Cited Ani131: , (Animals Used in Research par. 1), Fes07: , (Festing and Wilkinson par. 2), Que13: , (Questions and Answers: "Alternatives to Animal Testing" - updated March 2013 1), Read More