Weighing the Pros and Cons: Exploring the Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing

Animal testing refers to the use of live animals for research in order to better understand the effects of certain substance on human health. The use of animal testing in research dates back to ancient Greece where physician-scientists like Aristotle, Herophilus, and Erasistratus performed experiments to discover functions of living organisms. In medicine, animal studies are used to develop medical treatments, test their toxicity levels and adverse effects and ensure their safe use on humans. The last couple of years has seen a rise in disease and accompanying research on ways of curing diseases. These efforts have led to a drastic rise in the use of animals for research eliciting mixed opinions by experts and non-experts from various fields.

Over 100 million animals are killed in American and used for animal testing each year. Ethically, animal testing is opposed largely because of its consequences to the lives of animals it is considered unnatural and cruel. On the other hand, animal testing is seen as beneficial to humans because of the useful knowledge gained from the studies which has led great scientific advancements. This paper attempts to argue out the pros and cons of animal testing thereby drawing a conclusion on the use of animals as experiments.

The biggest argument against animal testing has been by animal right groups. Animal testing causes considerable suffering to animals. Experiments on animals has seen forceful pumping of chemicals into the animal's bodies, dissection without anesthesia, poisoning among other methods. Animals have a right to live peacefully and human beings, though having the ability, should not interfere with that. Animal testing fails animals in regard to the pain and suffering caused. An alternative to animal testing should be looked into as a way of alleviating the current moral injustice done to animals.

Order custom essay Weighing the Pros and Cons: Exploring the Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Another reason used against animal testing is that results are many times ineffective and unsure. Animal and humans differ significantly in their biological entities making it hard to extrapolate results seen in animals to humans. An example of such drawbacks was illustrated by the life-threatening effects experienced in humans by an anti-rheumatism drug. While the drug when tested, was without side effects in rats, it caused undesirable side effects to humans(Mepham, 2005).

Furthermore, different species have varied reactions to a drug so animal testing is often unreliable for proving efficacy of drugs. For instance, aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. Still, guinea pigs are not affected by strychnine - which can adversely affect the rat. The number of deaths from a selected species caused by drug reactions is undoubtedly significant making the process of animal testing unjustifiable.

Perhaps, the biggest argument among animal right groups and medical experts is that there are alternatives to animal testing. The use of human-models in gaining more popularity and is almost rendering animal testing obsolete. Human cells used in testing have been considered superior and more accurate. Human models are able to reduce the mistakes and assumptions often done with animal experiments. John Pipim, MD, Cardiologist and Director of Academic Affairs for Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in a statement following elimination of animal testing by John Hopkins University stated the following, "use of animal labs is unmistakably contrary to the intention to provide an excellent medical education. Modern medical simulators provide a superior way to learn surgical skills that are specific to human anatomy and physiology."

Aside from the ethical issues posed by animal issues, animal test are time and resource intensive and restrictive in the number of substances that can be tested. The process of trying to mirror diseases found in humans by artificially mimicking the symptoms in animals has major scientific limitations which cannot be overlooked. These setbacks make many of the experiments ineffective leading to loss of millions of funds used on research as well as causing potential harm to humans. The resources and efforts, however, if channeled to alternative more effectual ways of research would yield better results and alleviate the injustice meted towards many animals each year.

Even though many people consider animal testing brutal and cruel, some proponents have their sides to this issue. The major argument is the fact that the scientific breakthroughs brought by animal testing has saved millions of lives and informed medical practice today. The argument is that abolishment of animal testing would hamper scientists biomedical research is pivotal in medical practice. For example, Alan Lloyd and Andrew Huxley, recipients of the Nobel peace prize awards experimented on squids to elucidate the theory of nerve transmission. Their research has proved invaluable in the consequent treatment of nerve disorders.

The foundation of biomedical research stated in its article "Benefits of Biomedical Research," that "animal research has also paid incalculable benefits to animals. It has resulted in many remarkable lifesaving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife, and endangered species." New developments for condition affecting animals have been used after animal testing to enhance the lives of animals as well as preserve and protect endangered species such as chimpanzees bringing about a win-win situation.

Another argument is the fact that humans have a lesser moral obligation to animal's rights than to saving human lives. While protecting animals, is morally justifiable, the decision to save human life should be unquestionable. Ignoring human suffering is irresponsible and unacceptable. Laws and regulations should be out in place to protect animal testing but the use of animals as a way to better human life is unquestionably beneficial.

Due to the increased incidences of animal testing, the issues of animal experimentations remains highly debated and significant. Animal right and anti-vivisectionists groups continue to publicly advocate banning of animal testing on the basis of its effects on animals. Concurrently, proponents of animal experimentation are able to revoke their arguments and claim that in a larger sense, enhancing human lives should be prioritized over those of animals.

Even though both arguments have their pros and cons, I believe that while animal testing is brutish and unethical, it should not be abandoned altogether, but should be strictly regulated especially when used to test for substances unrelated to human health. Additionally, there should be clear, well defined standards on animal handling during experimentation tests.

References

1. Mepham, B (2005) Bioethics for the biosciences: an introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://animal-testing.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001887 Accessed on 22nd. February 2018.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer