(abstract) Animal experimentation is a highly controversial subject because of the rights of animals, scientific needs, and scientific methods. Supporters and opponents of animal experimentation both want what is best for the animals. Both sides want to see animals being treated fairly. However those for experimentation want scientific result from animal experimentation. Animal experimentation has lead to advances in medicine including treatments of several diseases such as polio and the measles. Animal experimentation allows for less human suffering. There are some alternatives to animal experimentation, which include simulators, and computer programs. For these reasons, animal experimentation is justified.
One big debate that has been going on for years is on the topic of animal experimentation. This debate has grown stronger as technology has advanced through the years. For years, animal rights activists and supporters of animal experimentation have debated. Due to the government and the scientific community, animal research has made progress the last few years. The government requires all drugs to be tested on animals before moving the test to humans. Animal experimentation has lead to new treatments, cures, and new antibiotics for many diseases. This paper argues that animal experimentation does not infringe on animal rights, fulfills a scientific need, and are conducted ethically.
Animal experimentation is done on a wide range of animals, including rats, mice, frogs, cats, dogs, and horses. The animals that scientists use could be bought from a pound or found in the wild. According to Simon Festing (2005), “over 70 percent of Nobel Prizes in medicine involved the use of animals” and scientists make it very clear that they believe there is much value in animal experimentation (p.570). Depending on what the scientist is trying to gain from an experiment, the animals may be changed physically by the scientist. For example, if the scientist is trying to find cures for schizophrenia, the scientist may inject medicine into the animal to cause it to be schizophrenic. Both supporters and opponents feel animal’s rights, scientific needs, and how experiments are conducted are important issues. Is animal experimentation justified? Yes, I believe it is.
Opponents of animal experimentation believe animals have rights, and it is morally wrong to cause animals’ overt suffering (Festing, 2005). Opponents also believe that just because animals are inferior to humans does not mean that it is okay to use them as test subjects. Those opposing animal experimentation feel that animals that are used in certain conditions in the laboratory could not function normally in their natural environment. Furthermore, the animal may end up having additional problems in biological functions. In addition to biological problems, opponents feel that functional problems will arise if the animal does not adjust to their natural environment outside that lab (Fraser, et al., 1997 p.187). However, if the animal will not be able to survive functionally outside the lab scientists may keep the animal for safety purposes.
In addition, to animal rights opponents feel there is no scientific need for animal experimentation. According to Steven Kaufman (2003), animal experimentation is “inefficient and unreliable, and there are better methods” (p. 3). Better methods may include simulators, virtual reality programs, and small group case studies. Also, opponents feel that even though scientific advances in medicine are good, animals are different from humans. According to Kaufman, on the subject of differences between animals and humans, he stated, “For the specific purpose of telling whether an acid is harmful to the eye, any mammal will do” (2003 p. 2). He also indicated “animal tests are not going to give you an answer on whether something is going to be risky for a human being. It’s a different species” (Is animal experimentation worthwhile 2003 p.6). Opponents also feel that research is done may not be used right away. However, in the United Kingdom, animal experimentation has very strict rules. These rules include “ replacement, reinforcement, and reduction” (Festing, 2005 p. 572) to keep the numbers of animals used low, but the results high.
Opponents to animal experimentation also feel that conditions for conducting experiments are not always followed. In fact, according to Festing (2005), ninety percent of opponents accept animal research as long as the experiment avoids unnecessary suffering for the animal, and is done only if there are no alternatives available (p. 571). Following rules of conducting experiments, scientists must follow the guidelines of the AWA. However, the AWA does not protect the animals during experiments, but it does provide for humane care, treatment, and transportation of the animals while in the laboratory. The AWA only allows for the animal to have enough room to turn around, and opponents feel the AWA does not protect the animal enough (Animal Welfare Act). Opponents feel the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not do their part in enforcing the AWA. Also, opponents feel that the USDA has stopped prosecuting those that violate the AWA, because reports are no longer put onto their website. Even though the USDA is involved in making sure the AWA is followed, the responsibility is mainly that of the Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS is in charge of making unannounced visits to laboratories to make sure the AWA is being followed.
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was created in 1966. The AWA created rights for animals also it created rules for how lab animals should be treated. Some of these rules cover topics such as humane care, handling, and treatment of the animals (Animal Welfare Act). The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) are federally mandated committees that are in charge of making sure the AWA is followed. Supporters feel although the AWA only provides minimal protection for animals, it is still protection. Besides having the AWA for protection, it is important to note that experiments must have scientific value, and it must be necessary to experiment with animals. Many papers that support animal experiments feel that animals do in fact have rights. One of these rights is that “animals should live natural lives through the development and use of their natural adaptations and capabilities” (Fraser, et al., 1997 p.187). This right of living a natural life is based upon what is important for the life of the animal. Another right animals have is that animals should not have to go through fear and pain, and should be able to have normal pleasures. A third right animals have is being able to function well physiologically and behaviorally (Fraser, et al., 1997 p.187).
In addition to animal rights, there are scientific needs that must be addressed. Supporters of animal experimentation believe “throughout the world people enjoy a better quality of life because advances made possible through medical research” (Festing 2005 p.568). Supporters feel that finding cures for diseases, including polio and measles, justified animal experimentation. They also believe that animals benefit from some experiments because medicines originally made for humans are now used in animals. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also requires that all new drugs be tested on animals before moving the drug to human testing. Although animals are different than humans, experiments do give significant results. Some significant results include knowing an acid in an animals’ eye will have the same effect on humans. After drug testing is done on animals, testing is done on humans, and finally scientists compare the results of the effects of the drug on humans and animals.
As if animal’s rights and scientific needs were not enough to justify animal experimentation, there is also the fact that experiments are done in a controlled environment. The people in charge of animal experimentation are trained animal welfare technicians (Festing 2005 p.569). Also, groups such as the IACUC are in charge of making sure laboratories are following the AWA. Furthermore, some animals used in experiments come from the wild, or animal shelters, so there is no need to worry about raising animals for the sole purpose of experimenting on them. In addition to testing being done by animals welfare technicians, tests are done at different levels of exposure. Some tests may expose the animal to minimal amounts of the product, while other tests may expose the animal to large amounts of the product. Furthermore, many cosmetic companies also do animal testing. However, cosmetic companies typically do animal testing as a “safety test” (Is Animal Experimentation Worthwhile 2003 p.7). Also, animal experimentation is done to benefit both humans and animals.
In all of the laboratories in the world, experiments on animals are done daily. Some laboratories may not follow the Animal Welfare Act, and some may follow the act completely. Animal experimentation is meant to provide a “better quality life” for humans by providing cures for diseases, antibiotics, and medicine for animals (Festing, 2005, p.568). The topics of animal rights, scientific needs, and the proper ways to conduct experiments will always be in debate. If the AWA is followed, animals are treated ethically and there is a need for the experiment, then animal experimentation is justified.
References
Animal Welfare Act. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from the in defense of animals website: http://www.idausa.org/facts/awafacts.html
Benatar, D. (2007). Unscientific ethics: Science and selective ethics. Hastings Center Report, 37 (1), 30-32.
Boksa, P. (2007). Of rats and schizophrenia. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, 32 (1), 8-10.
Brainard, J. (2006, November 24). Congress approves bill to punish threats against animal researchers. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 (14), A28. Retrieved February 11, 2007, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost.com/ehost/delivery
Carver, MJ. Responsible conduct in research: Animal care & use. Retrieved April 2, 2007, from http://www.uncw.edu/orssp/conduct-animal-generalinfo.html
Festing, S. (2005). The animal research debate, Political Quarterly, 76 (4), 568-572.
Fox, Michael A. (1986). The ethics of animal research: Two views. The Scientist, 1 (1), 19.
Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://reinvented.the-scientist.com/artivle/display/7124/
Fraser, D., Weary, D.M, Pajor, E.A., & Milligan, B.N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6(3), 187-205. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conect/ufaw/aw/1997
Is Animal Experimentation Worthwhile? [Interview with Steven Kaufman.] (2003) Nutrition Health Review: The consumer’s medical journal, 3, 6-8.
Medical Schools’ dog days nearing their end? (2007), Winter Good Medicine, 6-7.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Animal Welfare Information Center. (2003, April 21). Animal Welfare Act and Regulations: Retrieved April 2, 2007, from National Agriculture Library on the World Wide Web: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
If this is your entire paper, I'm going to delete all of the other blogs you made posting just parts of your paper.
Edit: Allow me to rephrase. If this is your entire paper, please consolidate your other blogs. I would greatly appreciate it.
~C
Visit my blog.
Animal research also helps animals. Any breakthrough in human health also helps progress animal treatments.
I love abortion. Read more here:
http://progressiveu.org/044921-i-love-abortion-even-if-it-murder