Ethics is defined as a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts such as good and bad, right and wrong, justice and virtue. As people, we question a lot of things that we do and ask ourselves if they are morally right. One question that many ask is if animal testing is right or wrong. Should we use animals for the sake of human beings? Is an animal’s life worth less then a person’s? These questions along with many others are raised within the ethical questions of animal testing. During the beginning of research studies we see that animals had no rights. Until the 18th century, we know that animals were thought of property, such as a lamp or a desk. There were not any animal protection laws, and no one cared if an animal was suffering. Within time many people have started to stand up for animal rights, and began to organize groups for the protection of animals. Some organizations include, the American Humane Society, the American Society for the Prevention of cruelty to Animals, and the National Anti-Vivisection Society.
First a good question to ask is why animals are used in the case of research. We know that using animals as test subjects has dated back all the way to the Roman and Greek times. The most early animal experiments were thought to be crude by the standards of how we think now. Most philosophers and physicians of this time did not know much about the body, the function of our organ systems within our bodies, or animal’s bodies. As time went on scientists find that research on animals began to become more ethical and more humane, although still not what everyone would call “ethical.” Even today, animals are widely used in research for many reasons. The National Academy of Sciences Natural Resource Council stated that “animals are a critical part of human health care.” But even though these animals are used to cure diseases, they are often mistreated. Many of the animals that are used include, cats, dogs, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, rats, monkeys, chimpanzees, horses, cattle sheep, goats, and swine. Researchers use animals to gain knowledge on common animal and human disorders. Even though these procedures often create helpful information that is vital to the human race, the tests are often harmful to animals.
Another reason animals are used in research is the vast amount of connections between the two. (McCoy,1917) informed that “one connection is the biochemical connection between animals and human beings.” Also, researchers have noticed a certain level of similarities within their DNA. Some ethologists, who are people who study animal behavior, had stated that some animals have altruistic behavior that is similar of that as humans. Although there are many similarities between humans, and animals there are also major differences. Researchers note that some animals often have different responses to drugs and chemicals than humans. Another major similarity is the posture of animals, since it is very different from those of human beings; such as reasoning, and the differences in characteristics and traits. But is this all we can look at when trying to find out if animal testing is right or wrong? Or should we look deeper, to try to find the true ethical, and moral values of this question?
When looking deeper into animal testing we find many positive about it. How are humans benefiting from testing being performed on animals? Many animals are used in biomedical and behavioral research. The use of animals in research has allowed scientists to gain medical advances, discoveries, and new techniques that may not have been found otherwise. We have found that animal testing has helped find ways to help save lives of not only human beings, but even animals. Because many animals react the same way that humans do to certain drugs, it is useful to use them in research studies, rather than harming a human being.
One medical breakthrough developed in the early part of the 20th century, was the development of insulin. Amazingly enough, this discovery came from a research on diabetes in dogs that was conducted by a physician Frederick Banting, along with his associates. A number of dogs were used in his experiment: some of them had to have their pancreas removed. Eventually an extract of beef pancreas was developed, which Banting called “isletin.” Later the extract’s name was changed to insulin, which was derived from the Latin word insula, or island. Today, millions of lives have been saved by insulin. People who have diabetes can now live normal lives just by having insulin available to them.
Another helpful discovery that was developed because of the use of animals in testing, was the vaccine against poliomyelitis. This is a disease that cripples both adults, and children, also known as polio. It causes atrophy of the arms and legs, body paralysis, and if it doesn’t cause death, will cause the person to live life on an iron lung or respirator. But Dr. Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine in the 1950’s after conducting an experiment on rhesus monkeys.
Open-heart surgery used to be a major crisis. In the 1970s, procedure could not be performed without the results of experiments that were being performed on cats and dogs. The experiments that was conducted involved the design and use of heart/lung machines. These machines were vital to open-heart surgery. The researchers working on the project would clamp off dog and cat arteries, and they would then route the animal’s blood through the forerunner of the present-day heart/lung machine. Later, the heart/pump machine was improved by a roller pump that was developed by Dr. Michael DeBakey. The roller pump would change the course of the blood from the vasculature and cause it to go through the heart/lung machine. When this happened it added oxygen to the blood. The pump that is now used and is an important part of the modern heart/lung machine was first developed and used on animals.
Hepatitis, which is the inflammation of the liver, is a debilitating viral disease. There are many different types of hepatitis. Acute hepatitis B’s symptoms are much more severe than type A’s. Type B symptoms are weakness, abdominal discomfort, and loss of appetite. Dogs are susceptible to a form of hepatitis, and a vaccine against infectious canine hepatitis was discovered about 30 years ago. But only recently a vaccine that is used against acute hepatitis B.
Another major contribution from animal testing is burn A British biologist, P.B. Medawar, conducted an experiment on cattle that involved skin transplants. His experiment showed that skin and other tissue could be taken from a bull calf and his free martin twin, which is a sexually mal-developed female calf that was born as a twin to a bull calf. The two different cows were able to tolerate the other’s tissue and proteins. These tests allowed the major advances in the treatment of burns in humans, and even animals.
Animal testing is not only helping aid the lives of humans but also the lives of other animals. This fact is often not thought about when we look at animal testing. (Cathran, 2002) “There have been a huge amount of breakthroughs in veterinary medicine because of animal testing.” Animal surgeries, and antibiotics have all improved because of animal testing.
From a neurological perspective, a colony of Brittany Spaniels have been developed to serve as a model for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also know as ALS, or as Lou Gehrig’s disease. This disease kills and destroys nerves in the brain and spinal cord. It will affect about 5,000 Americans each year. But the dogs have an inherited disease that produces progressive paralysis similar to that found in human ALS. Dogs can reproduce quickly, therefore the genetic studies can provide many different insights that would be too difficult to study in humans.
Now the negative side of animal testing. Through scientific research, many find that the data received from animal tests is misleading, unnecessary or dangerous. Many ask how do humans really benefit from animal testing? Animals are not strong models for human disease, which means the data that is recovered from animal-model experiments must be scaled. Scaling is a scientific term that refers to the “judge factor.”
We all put our lives in the hands of science. We trust in doctors to know how to fix what is wrong with us. These doctors use drugs that scientists have discovered through the use of research. Should not the model for these drugs be placed on a scale that is similar to the one of humans, not those of animals half our size?
Another main point against animals testing is the morality (Cathran 2002) said “No government has ever given animals the same rights as humans. Because we are human, we feel that we are superior, therefore animal suffering does not mean as much.” But many tests that are done on animals typically cause the animal to be in pain, and to suffer. If we can find alternative methods to the tests that are being performed, then the lives of animals will not be harmed.
Huggins, “One major reason why suffering does occur within animal testing is the fact that research animals are not given the right amount of space, mental stimulus, or even companionship.” An animal does not want to be placed in a 4’ by 4’ cage, where he/she has no interaction with other animals or humans. Another major argument debated is the fact that these animals did not volunteer for these tests. Animals can not raise their hand and say yes, please give my life to these tests to try to help find the cure for a certain disease.
Some argue that animal experiments do not do anything to assure that products are actually safe to use. We see tons of injuries due to products that passed by the safety tests in which animals were used. People will continue to be poisoned by household cleaners, air fresheners, and many other potentially harmful substances, while they are on the market. And even though tests are done on animals to try to prevent harmful products from being released, they are still there, and the animals are being harmed for no reason.
A physician will rarely look at tests done on animals, and the data for ways to treat people who have been poisoned by harmful substances. (Van der Jagt, Munn, Bruijn, 2004) states “these tests are rarely applied to humans, because doctors tend to have a lot more confidence in data that has been taken from human-based trials.” Now that we are in the 21st century, we realize that animal testing is outdated. We now have computers that use simulation programs to find answers to the questions about diseases that can kill.
Finally, animal testing is a very slow, expensive process. Computer testing can generate data instantly, while animals requires a researcher to watch them at all times. And even after the experiment is conducted, it takes weeks to find out what exactly the effects of a drug are.
Although discussed earlier, many people believe that animals do have rights, but how do some people’s views differ from this, and some completely disagree with the statement that animals have rights. Some people believe that animals should not have any rights. A quote “If an eagle has a legal right to life, isn’t he bound to respect the same rights granted to the field mouse?” This is a good question, that involves giving animals the rights that they need. In the animal kingdom, there is no respect granted to others species’ right to life. Everyone knows that this is the circle of life, and it is just what happens.
Charles R. Pulver is a man who doesn’t believe that animals have rights. He would argue that animals do not have any rights. He believes that animals do not have the capacity to fulfill the duties that accompany such rights. He feels that they do not have the mentality to respect life. Pulver also goes along with the fact that God granted humans a higher standard than animals, and thinks that animals should be used for testing, Animals can not be punished like humans can, and their behavior is run by natural instinct. Right and wrong does not pop up into their heads when they are doing something. So Pulver feels that treating an animal like a human would be stupid and irrational.
Taking a deeper look into the aspect of animal testing and psychological psychology we find many pros and cons within each. Psychological psychology is the study of psychology that is concerned with the relationship between the brain and behavior, including the use of psychological tests and assessment techniques to diagnose specific cognitive and behavioral deficits. Worth, Balls says that “animal and human brains do have some similar qualities, but they are not exact matches.” If we are performing inhumane tests on animals, in which their brains don’t even match up to a humans, is there really any scientific proof that these drugs will work? Or will the humans who first receive these drugs be like tests also, and if they work than thank goodness, and if not then we wipe them off the market?
In my opinion, animal testing should be allowed. For one to a certain point animals should have the same rights as humans. They breathe, they feel, and they hurt. Why should an animal be a part of a sick experiment, that might not even help the human race? In a way, yes there have been many great findings due to animal testing. But just because some have done good, that doesn’t mean that all of them have.
Technology is growing at an amazingly fast pace, and with these advancements we should learn to make mock simulations of these tests. But it would be necessary to create mock simulations of humans so the tests are more reliable. My morals, and my moral understanding is that we should not harm animals when we could use different methods of research for these experiments.
There are already laws that protect research animals. (Sunni, 1990) gives two acts for animal protection, “The U.S. Animal Welfare Act and the Health Research Extension Act Of 1985.” The U.S. Animal Welfare Act requires animal dealers to be licensed, to be approved as legitimate animal experimenters, and regulates the transportation of animals to be used in laboratories. The Health Research Extension Act sets guidelines for the proper care and treatment of research animals. In a way it is cither of these laws should need to be in place: that animal testing is wrong and should not be performed, therefore no regulation would be required.
What are the alternatives to animal testing, and what else can be done instead of these inhumane tests? Many animal advocates like the American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research, work along side with scientists to come up with, options for finding cures to many diseases, without using animal testing.
(Sunni, 1990) says “To remove animals from testing, follow the three “Rs.” Replacement, reduction, and refinement.”
Replacement: take animals out of these environments, and replace them with a different method of testing.
Reduction: reduce the amount of animals being used in tests.
Refinement: refine the current procedures to avoid the unnecessary pain and stress of animals.
Along with the three “R’s” many new different methods have been developed. Other than there being no harm done to animals, most of these alternative methods are less expensive and even more accurate than animal testing. One main method now uses computers replace the LD50 test. The LD50 test is a sensitivity test: animals are given a single dose of a chemical and are then monitored to see if they eventually die. Replacing the LD50 test with computers is a wonderful idea. If we can prevent the deaths of animals, and still get the same results from test, it would be a great step in the right direction. Even if we did need to use animals in research, we should make sure the animals aren’t being treated inhumanly.
Although many do not believe that animal research is morally and ethically correct, the fact that animal testing will never end is unfortunately true. The discoveries that some researchers have made are too important for others to stop now. Their ways have worked in the past for some, and they will continue to use this method of experimentation. Humans won’t have to be used, but still human lives will be saved. There is a long history of using animals in testing that has been successful for researchers, and, even with new methods, animal testing won’t end.
Bibliography
1. Hayhurst, Christ. (2000). Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York, NY: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.
2. McCoy, J.J. (1917). Animals in Research: Issues and Conflicts. New York, NJ: Franklin Watts, Inc.
3.Cothran , Helen . (2002). Animal Experimentation: Opposing View Points. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
4. Bloyd, Sunni. (1990). Animal rights. San Deigo, CA: Lucent Books, Inc.
5. Worth, Andrew, & Balls, Michael. Alternative (non-animal) methods for chemicals testing. Current Status and Future Prospects,
6. Pandey, Kundan . (2010, September 14). Animal research pros and cons. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-research-pros-and-cons.html
7. Huggins, Jane. (2003). Alternatives to animal testing. Research, Trends, Validation, Regulatory Acceptance.
No comments:
Post a Comment