NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... for pregnancy was to inject a urine sample into a rabbit. After injected, the rabbit would be killed to see if the ovaries were swollen; if so, the woman was pregnant. As indicated, there have been some strides for the search for alternatives to animal testing, but without animal testing the environment will also suffer. The mink is a good example of how testing is helping the environment. Mink are highly susceptible to a raft of environmental chemicals, particularly PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyl) and dioxins.
By feeding mink contaminated Carp in Lake Michigan, scientists can asses the impact of contaminants on the Carps reproductive ability. By knowing what levels are harmful, science can determine water quality standards for Carp and many other species, including humans. Ways are being developed for using the South African clawed frog for testing soil toxicity at Superfund (toxic waste) sites. Because the frogs embryos are transparent, researchers can trace abnormalities caused by contaminants. This will help the environment around Superfund sites and also can be used as a model for all soil contaminated areas. The truth, whether popular or not, is that humans are invading more of the earth.
Along with this invasion comes the baggage that goes with invasion, such as garbage and waste. The solution to solving these problems that have been caused can be found through the use of animal experimentation. If one is pro environment but opposed to animal testing, consider yourself on shaky ground the two positions are not compatible. This is a position taken by environmentalists for quite some time when in fact it openly contradicts itself. Undoubtedly, the environment is of much importance when animal testing is discussed, but the most prevalent reason must not be overlooked- Human Medical Gain. Humans have the most to benefit from animal experimentation; it can extend the quality of lives and lengthen life span.
At the University of Pittsburgh, this has proven to be the case. In 1992, a human recipient of a baboon liver transplant lived for two weeks (Harris). Although this may not sound like an enormous feat, it most certainly was. By using the baboons liver, doctors and scientists have learned a tremendous amount about transplant surgery. Nothing is perfect the first time around but in time with help from animals such as the baboon, the procedure can be perfected. The question that must be raised is whether a human has more of a right to live than an animal.
In the opinion of many, this question should not even be considered. It is what is called survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive, and in this instance humans are the stronger of the two species. This concept is very common in the wild.
Lions kill zebra as means of survival, and tigers eat gazelle to survive. Just as these animals must make sacrifices in order to survive, so does the human race. People need food and cures for diseases to survive; it just ties in that animals are used for both. Leaps and bounds have been made through way of animal experimentation with such cures for polio, tetanus, and the invention of insulin. Without vital information via experimentation, none of these cures or vaccines would be available today. The number of diseases plaguing society today is at all time high, thus discontinuing experimentation would be out of the question.
Aids (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) has evolved into one of the most lethal diseases ever to afflict mankind, yet no cure has been found. By stopping the one opportunity for finding a cure, a death sentence is being distributed to millions around the globe. A collection of about 450 chemicals over 20 years of long term animal studies (altogether about 1, 000 to 1, 200 chemicals) have been adequately tested on animals for carcinogenicity. If these chemicals had not been properly tested, many products might have been put on the market with catastrophic results. To bring things to a close, even though much controversy arises due to animal experimentation, the benefits of experimentation cannot be overlooked. Thirty seven laboratories participated in a joint study and tried nine of the most promising In-Vitro alternatives and they all failed (Harris).
Until there is a sure-fire way to replace animal testing, the only human option is to continue with it. Alternative methods are incapable of replacing all animal testing because of this fact: Computers and cell cultures cannot completely mimic the complex biochemical interactions that occur in a human. The use of animals in laboratory experiments must continue to ensure the health, and lives of every organism on the planet. Those who oppose animal rights claim that animals simply are too different from humans, and unlike humans animals dont live by moral views and therefore, are not part of the human moral community (Bernard and Caufman, p. 27). This is true; animals are by no means considered humans. They coexist with us, live in our homes and surround us everywhere we turn, but they are not humans by any stretch of the imagination.
Another argument used to justify vivisection is that it provides extremely useful data to be applied to humans in the field of medicine. Advances in the medical field are a great accomplishment and are urged on by many, but when it comes at the expense of life, even of an animal, support for such research begins to dwindle. More critics argue that if animals are to be given rights, does it apply to all species? Must we treat dragonflies the same as dolphins? (Bernard and Caufman, p. 29). This is a good point. Granted, protection of every single living organism would be difficult and most likely unnecessary.
A line must be drawn somewhere. First and foremost, it has been established that animal can indeed feel pain. With that in mind, one must ask them what rights do we as humans have to inflict pain on anyone or anything. We havent any, especially to something that poses no threat to us. Of course, there are exceptions. Lets say youre attacked by a tiger while on safari in Africa or something along those lines.
In a situation like that, it is justifiable to harm an animal in self defense, but surely an innocent rabbit strapped down to a lab table poses no threat to anyone or anything, therefore the painful experimentation on these animals is unjustifiable. Many people who support animal experimentation do so because they believe that testing on animals has brought and has the potential to bring about extensive advances in the field of medicine. This is somewhat fuzzy area, but it is a proven fact that there is not one animal species the biological reactions of which are identical to humans (Bernard and Caufman, p. 50). Chimpanzees are very similar to humans, made up of nearly 99 % of the same genetic material (Bernard and Caufman, p. 50).
However, just because a certain species has a genetic makeup similar to that of humans does not necessarily mean that their immune systems function the same as ours. For example, chimps as mentioned above, are very close to humans genetically, but are not susceptible to many of the diseases that afflict humans (including AIDS), nor do they have the same reaction to drugs and procedures as we do (Bernard and Caufman, p. 55). With this in mind, it makes it even harder to justify the experimentation on animals if the results of these tests cannot be applied to humans, leading to the next topic of extrapolation. Extrapolation as used in animal experimentation means the use of data taken from tests on animals and assuming the data applies to humans. For example, an experimental vaccine for cancer is tested on a chimp.
In this hypothetical experiment, the vaccine works. Then, it is assumed that because chimps are very similar to humans, the vaccine will not only work for humans, but will be safe for humans to use as well. This is the process of extrapolation. At the Uniformed Services University at the Department of Defense an experiment was conducted to measure recovery from injuries. Dogs were strapped down and vivisection's mutilated the dogs knees by cutting apart skin to leave flaps. At the end if the study, the dogs were killed (Chang 1998, p. 18).
Surely a more effective way of garnering useful information for medical advances are epidemiological studies, in vitro research, clinical research of human subjects, and computer modeling (Chang 1998, p. 25). It is undoubtedly more cost effective as well each year, the U. S. spends over $ 18 billion dollars on vivisection alone (Chang 1998, p. 35). In gathering the information for this project, I was forced to look at two sides of an issue that I had previously made a decision about long before the assignment.
In weighing the information, I did come to a logical and ethical conclusion. In order to reach a decision, I first examined the principle of utility. Under John Stuart Mills definition of utility, animals would not be a covered under the theory of utility as they do not have the capacities that human beings have (Harris 1997, p. 128). But Mills contradicts himself in saying that happiness should be secured not only to human beings but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole of sentient creation (1997, p. 130). Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism believes that the capacity to suffer and enjoy is the characteristic that entitles a being to consideration under the utilitarian standpoint (1997, p. 131), Thus, animals qualify for consideration from a utilitarian standpoint. And animal suffering should count equally to that of humans (1997, p. 131), at least in my opinion.
There is no reason, then, for the slaughtering of animals to further medical research. I believe the evidence gathered proves that the bad far outweighs the good. The other theory that supports my conclusion is the Tom Regans theory of inherent value. Tom Regan states that though animals do not have the same capacity as human beings, they are valuable because they are the experiencing subjects of a life (Olen and Barry 1999, p. 429). I personally agree with this. If Immanuel Kant was a modern day philosopher, perhaps his ethical theory would be respect for all living creatures rather than respect for persons.
Under Kant's theory (if it were to include animals), animals would certainly be protected from the injustices they suffer. And perhaps the lesson to be learned is that Western ethical theories should not always be the only basis for examining our actions. We have certainly learned that many of the theories discussed in class are problematic and cannot be the sole reference point for our moral dilemmas. Bibliography: Barnard, Neal D. and Kaufman, Stephen R. Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading, Scientific American.
Retrieved October 20, 2004 from GO Network: web Barry, Vincent and Olen, Jeffery (1999). Applying Ethics. (6 th ed. ). San Francisco: Wadsworth. Betting, Jack H.
and Morrison, Adrian R. Animal Research is Vital to Medicine, Scientific American. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from GO Network: web Chang, Maria L. (1998) Animal Research, Right or Wrong? . Science World. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from Find Articles: web Harris C. E.
Jr. (1997). Applying Moral Ethics. (3 rd Ed. ). San Francisco: Wadsworth. Author unknown.
Retrieved October 20, 2004 from LCA (Last Chance for Animals): web Author unknown. Drug Testing: Pain, Not Gain. Fact sheets: Animal Experimentation. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from PETA Website: web Author unknown. Retrieved October 20, 2004 from LCA: web Author unknown. Animal Use in Testing FDA-Regulated Products.
Retrieved October 20, 2004 from web
Free research essays on topics related to: author unknown, animal testing, human beings, san francisco, animal experimentation
Research essay sample on Animal Experimentation Animal Testing
