Table of Contents
People who oppose using animals in experiments and those who support it differ greatly. The latter group, primarily scientists, tends to write off the first as demonstrative morons. This raises an ethical problem since, on the one hand, most of the animals utilized are sentients the research might damage. In contrast, the research may be essential for avoiding, treating, or lessening human ailments. On how to solve this predicament, there is no agreement. The position was taken by animal rights organizations, which consider harming animals for human needs utterly wrong. The opposite side, led by scientists and their cronies, believes humans should exploit animals for their advantage. Animals should not be used in research since it brings unnecessary pain, anguish, and unnecessary deaths despite benefiting people.
The efficacy of animal experimentation questioned
Nonhuman animal testing is widely justified by the claims that it is trustworthy, that animals make adequate patterns of human biology and diseases to produce crucial data, and that, as a result, its application has significant high medicinal value. As argued by Brennan (1997), nonhuman animal experimentation can be divided into two categories: fundamental, which includes studying human disease and basic biology, and applied, which includes developing new drugs and conducting toxicity and safety tests. Regardless of how it is classified, animal research is purposed for enhancing knowledge within the fields pertaining to human biology as well as health sciences, in addition to the security as well as the efficacy of future remedies (Akhtar, 2015). Animal research’s efficacy has not received ample rigorous consideration, notwithstanding the substantial resources it requires, the misery it brings about to animals, and its ramifications on the health of human beings.
- Excellent quality
- 100% Turnitin-safe
- Affordable prices
Animal experimentation has typically not been held to the same standard of ethical conduct as human experiments, in spite of the circumstance that it is usually acknowledged that medicine ought to be evidence-based. Given this, it is remarkable that animal experimentation essentially is frequently regarded as the de facto gold standard pertaining to preclinical research, as well as that it is usually supported without being critically analyzed for validity. Animal experimentation’s prognostic power is questioned by Akhtar (2015) because it has never been proven to be an essential step in biomedical research. Animal research does not correctly determine human outcomes, making it unhelpful for a variety of diseases. As evidenced by extant literature, animal testing is unreliable, which undermines any scientific justification. Furthermore, the cumulative harms brought on by an inconsistent procedure tip the moral scale of advantages and disadvantages against continuing most, if not all, animal testing.
Plenty of substitutes
Animal rights are violated since humans and animals can feel, act, comprehend, and suffer pain. Thus, just like people, animals have a moral obligation to be treated with dignity and respect. According to Brennan (1997), the wider populace frequently assumes that the animals used in experiments are cared for humanely. This is not always the situation, though, since some animal studies are indeed torturous to the animals. Every human subject who takes part in the study must complete a written consent. On the other hand, there is no such thing as informed permission when animals are used in research that could end their lives. Animals, according to scientists, are not as intelligent as people and so do not understand what permission is. The utter disregard for animal involvement is a clear violation of their rights. Just because people do not understand the concept of consent does not give them the right to treat animals. One could contend that people might not grasp the implications of consent if they were suffering from certain mental illnesses (Grooms, 2021). This should not mean granting others the freedom to act however they please. Animals should therefore be taken as seriously as people.
Humanity may have once relied on animals for survival, but this should not be the case any longer after such evolution. We are too passive or heartless to innovate if we continue to test consumer goods or look for medical treatments using painful methods. Everyone should help stop animal testing because it is on the losing side. Furthermore, there is another way to develop safe pharmaceuticals and cosmetics or find treatments for common diseases. The reality is that testing on animals is expensive and painful, and there are no reasonable options for it, thanks to advancements in science and technology. Cosmetic businesses can assess these goods using synthetic cellular material mimicking human skin rather than animals as their research subjects. The advent of “eyetex,” a synthetic material that imitates a real eye and becomes invisible when something harms it. Another great complement to animal experiments is “in vitro testing,” which involves conducting cellular tests inside a test tube (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). A cutting-edge tool called “organs on chips” aids researchers in their study of illnesses, medication digestion, and the human genetic structure.
In the guise of scientific investigation, over 115 million animals are massacred yearly for experiments or to feed the biomedical sector globally. This is a high price to pay, especially when taking into account that these countless deaths do not yield much. Studies indicate that most illness classifications have a significant clinical chance of therapeutic failure due to insufficient animal models and human disease diversity. Animal models have failed to develop drugs for cancer, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and inflammatory disorders. To evaluate prospective treatments, animal cancer models with artificial tumors are used to study physiological and biochemical aspects of cancer start and progression. Unfortunately, models cannot accurately depict human carcinogenesis. Clinical failure rates of cancer drugs confirm these shortcomings. Mouse ALS models differ greatly from human ALS, and human ALS patients benefit from these treatments more than animal models. Thus, it is imperative to realize that the decision is not between humans and other animals but rather between excellent research and pseudoscience since it truly is a tragic situation. Thus, it can be said that since animal experimentation infringes the basic rights of animals and only results in their misery, it must be completely prohibited.
- Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407-419. DOI: 10.1017/S0963180115000079
- Brennan, A. (1997). Ethics, conflict and animal research. Animal Issues, 1(2), 3. https://ro.uow.edu.au/ai/vol1/iss2/3
- Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
- Grooms, A. (2021). Animal Testing Should be Banned. griffonnews.com. Retrieved 19 July, 2022 from: https://www.griffonnews.com/opinion/animal-testing-should-be-banned/article_8dccd65c-44b8-11ec-87d0-4bbfefeff593.html
- Otto, C. (2021). Why Do Humans Still Experiment on Animals? sentientmedia.org. Retrieved 19 July 2022 from: https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-animal-testing-bad/