Is it ethical to use animals in scientific experimentation? This questioned has posed a lot of controversy as everyone appears to have their own opinion on the topic. What is my view? Well, I believe it is ethical to use animals in scientific experimentation.
To begin with, the use of animals in scientific experimentation does a fair share in improving human health. Animal testing helps researchers find drugs and treatments to advance health and medicine, it helps ensure the safety of drugs and other substances that are not regularly exposed to humans, and animals are considered similar to humans, making the data obtained an asset to human health and prosperity (Murnaghan, 2017).
A considerable perk about animal testing is that it improves health and medicine by helping researchers discover drugs and treatments. Many medical treatments such as cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, and vaccines have been made possible because of animal experimentation (Murnaghan, 2017). If animal testing had not assisted in these discoveries, a lot of human lives would have been lost because of the absence of these medical treatments. For new drugs and treatments to be discovered, animal testing must be continued.
Another major positive of animal experimentation is that it helps ensure the safety of drugs prior to their use on humans. With their use, drugs can carry potentially life threatening dangers. Animal testing allows researchers to gauge a drugs safety prior to undergoing clinical trials on humans (Murnaghan, 2017). Animal experimentation potentially saves human lives by reducing the risk of harm and adverse effects occurring from new drugs.
Since animals are relatively similar to humans, the information attained from animal experimentation is beneficial to human health. The data collected can be used to deem the safety of drugs or other substances in humans. Researchers do consider the limitations and differences between animals and humans, but animals are the closet match to humans, allowing for the data collected too be applied to humans (Murnaghan, 2017). Without animals to test on, researchers would not have the information to gauge what is safe for human trail.
The strongest counterargument to my position on animal experimentation being ethical is that animals are killed and kept in captivity during the testing process. Countless lives of animals are lost as the tests they were involved in were too dangerous (Murnaghan, 2017). Is it ethical to spare animals lives for the benefit of humans? Imagine if it was your pet being tested on. I am positive that no one would allow their own pet to be experimented on if they knew there was even a slight chance of the pet being harmed, let alone killed. With that being said, researchers are taking the lives of animals for granted when we know that they have minds of their own and are much more than just test dummies.
My view on the ethics of animal experimentation has not changed since the beginning of this module, as I still believe that it is ethical to use animals for experimentation. The benefits heavily outweigh the negatives as animal testing provides many important insights for the health and prosperity of humans. Animal experimentation aids researchers in finding new drugs and treatments, it helps to ensure the safety of drugs for human use, and the similarity between animals and humans allows for important discoveries to be made that are beneficial to human health (Murnaghan, 2017). Humans must do what is needed for us to survive in this world with endless possibilities.
References
Murnaghan, I. (2017, February 16). Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. Retrieved February 19, 2017, from http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/using-animals-testing-pros-versus-cons.html
Hi Matthew,
You have made a very solid case for animal experimentation using a variety of lines of argument. I have a few comments for your consideration (no need to reply):
I was interested to see you say that you thought people would refuse to allow their own pets to be tested on. What do you think accounts for this…would you call it a double-standard? And is it justified in your view? Put differently, I wasn’t sure how you reconciled this counterargument with your own final conclusion?
Relatedly, there were a few parts of the film that you viewed for this assignment that are relevant to your blog post. In particular, Peter Singer made an argument about suffering being suffering regardless of whether it is a human’s or another animal’s. I wonder if this intuition is what is behind people’s refusal to harm their own pets for human benefit? And how would you respond to Singer’s claim that we should treat these interests in not suffering (or dying) equally, regardless of which type of animal’s interests they are? If you ever wish to review it so you can continue to think about this, you can find a version of the argument here (page 6): http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf