The debate about the ethics of people engaging in animal research

The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals. Other things we do to animals can be worse for them than physical pain. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing.

One problem with this type of argument is that many humans themselves do not actually fulfill the criteria for belonging to the human moral community.

Experimenting on animals

The FOI Act is intended to promote openness and accountability, and to facilitate better public understanding of how public authorities carry out their duties, why and how they make decisions, and how they spend public money.

This essay defends animal experimentation. The proposals have three aims: Not all scientists are convinced that these tests are valid and useful. In fact, it seems that most GPs think that medical research in general can be misleading; it is good scientific practice to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism and avoid over-reliance on any one set of data or research method.

Because the overwhelming use of animals in society was in agriculture, aimed at providing food, fiber, locomotion, and power, and because the key to agricultural success was having healthy animals, good husbandry and good care were enforced by the most powerful sanction, self-interest; the anticruelty laws were only there for society to manage sadists and psychopaths unmoved by self-interest.

Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.

Pain, as a physical phenomenon, does not begin to capture all the ways that what we do to animals matters to them.

Debate: Animal testing

Unfortunately, we have no words for many of the myriad ways we can harm or cause animals to suffer. Despite the inherent limitations of some non-animal tests, they are still useful for pre-screening compounds before the animal-testing stage, which would therefore reduce rather than replace the number of animals used.

Although a moral community could theoretically include animals, it frequently does not. The topic is highly controversial.

The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research

The only reference in the law to the many ways that animals used in research can suffer beyond the infliction of physical pain upon them—including fear, anxiety, separation from family and other animals of the same species, unnatural diets and food acquisition, severely truncated possibility of movement, denial of opportunities for play, disturbance of routine—is the statutory requirement that pain and distress be controlled.

It is not plausible to suggest that the animal chews its leg off to avoid death, since it is not possible that a nonlinguistic being has a concept of death, though it understands the inability to escape. Ethical arithmetic Animal experiments and ethical arithmetic The consequentialist justification of animal experimentation can be demonstrated by comparing the moral consequences of doing or not doing an experiment.

Throughout the world, people enjoy a better quality of life because of these advances, and the subsequent development of new medicines and treatments—all made possible by animal research. Anti-vivisectionist groups do not accept this reality and are campaigning vigorously for the adoption of other methods without reference to validation or acceptance of their limitations, or the consequences for human health.

The Research Defence Society RDS; London, UKan organization representing doctors and scientists in the debate on the use of animals in research and testing, welcomes the greater openness that the FOI Act brings to discussions about animal research. Even then, some countries might insist that animal tests are carried out if they have not been explicitly written out of the guidelines.

The second is that scientists must be agnostic about consciousness and pain in animals. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Avon, Sadly, there are a number of examples where researchers have been prepared to experiment on human beings in ways that should not have been permitted on animals.

Unfortunately, the in vitro tests can produce false results, and tend to be used more to understand the processes of mutagenicity and carcinogenicity than to replace animal assays. The Act requires that proposals for research involving the use of animals must be fully assessed in terms of any harm to the animals.

In respect to his capacity, many animals are no different than humans. Drugs are then administered, the tubes removed and the number of cells determined.Although moral debate regarding the use of animals in medical research continues to evolve, three main themes appear increasingly more prominent.

First, the rise of radical animal-rights organizations like the Animal Liberation Front suggests that there is a small enclave of passionate individuals committed to the idea that all animal research is inherently unethical. Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation.

It is estimated that 50 to million vertebrate animals worldwide — from zebrafish to non-human primates — are used annually. Although much larger numbers of invertebrates are used and the use of flies and worms as model organisms is very important, experiments on invertebrates are largely.

An important part of the debate over animal rights centers on the question of the moral status of an animal. Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status – that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals.

The ethics of research involving animals.

The Moral Status of Invasive Animal Research

Nuffield Council on Bioethics Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC, FBA The issues addressed in this Report have been a subject of intense public debate over at least the Ethical issues raised by animal research.

Dec 08,  · The three Rs are a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals. people. Animal experiments eliminate some. The Moral Status of Invasive Animal Research By Bernard E. Rollin During the s and s, two veterinarians and I conceptualized, drafted, and ultimately, inpersuaded Congress to pass federal legislation assuring some minimal concern on the part of researchers for the welfare of laboratory animals.

Download
The debate about the ethics of people engaging in animal research
Rated 3/5 based on 17 review