Should Animals Be Used For Scientific Research Sociology Essay

In the present age, it is inevitable and undeniable to develop scientific research given the high demand for medicine and veterinary health. It is universally acknowledged that animals play an indispensable role in scientific research. The British Royal Society, argues that” virtually every medical achievement in the past century reliant on the use of animals in some way.”(The Royal Society 2004, p.1) including treatment of diabetes, heart surgery transplants and research that aims to increase knowledge about the way organisms behave, develop, and function biologically. Whether animals should be used for testing has become much debatable issue. Some people assert that Animals are necessary of use in product development, while some advocates of animal rights try to prohibit animal use in experiments of scientific research because they are upset by what they see as needless suffering. They believe that everything was created equal; humans do not have the right to deprive animals of their lives. This essay will propose using animals in research is justified. It will argue that animal testing has more positives than negatives.

Firstly the definition of rights between humans and animals are different. Animals do not have some rights as humans because there “is no morality for them; animals do no moral wrong,” and the “concepts of wrong, and of right, are totally foreign.” (Cohen 2001 p. 31) Therefore it is impossible to empower the same rights to humans and animals, and animals should not be considered for the same position as humans. For example, the laws of human provide us a guarantee that every person has the right of not being hurt. If the application is also suitable to the animal, of course scientists should not be allowed to use animals in the experiments, but the laws of the animal world cannot offer that, because of the fact that wild animals prey on other animals for their food. It is conceivable that animals do not have a sense of duty like people, so they should not be equated with human beings. However, using animals for scientific experiments should not be argued. “To say of a pig or a rabbit that it has rights is to confuse categories, to apply to its world a moral category that can have content only in the human moral world” (Cohen 2001,p. 30) using animals is not mistreating animals, the use of scientific research has a more meaningful and essential purpose.

Secondly animal testing standards are acceptable as they are controlled by many laws and regulations. In Australia, all research and teaching that involves the use of animals must be according to the “Australian code of Practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.” Each animal testing must be assessed by an” institutional Animal Ethics Committee (AEC)”. The AEC decides whether or not an experiment can be conducted, and can place provisions on the numbers of animals used. The AEC prevents animals from being treated in an inhumane way. Each AEC includes at least one animal welfare member, a doctor or veterinary medicine, a practicing scientist who is experienced in animal research, a nonscientific member, and one member who is not related to the lab except through being a member of their AEC. (Australian Government 2004, p.1) Another way the labs are regulated is by laws such as the Animal Welfare Act. “The Animal Welfare Act… sets standards for the [care] of laboratory animals.” (AustLII 2002) This law maintains that the animals are treated well.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Find out more about our Essay Writing Service

Thirdly animals are necessary for product development. Most animal experiments are conducted for the development of technology and some good medicine has come from it. The Foundation for Biomedical Research says that “animal research has been responsible for every medical breakthrough over the past century, although this position has been disputed.”(Ruesch, Hans, 1989) It was used in the development of penicillin, organ transplants, and was used in the creation of a vaccine for polio. For instance, in the 1880s, Louis Pasteur convincingly demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep. (Mock M, Fouet A 2001)Insulin was first isolated from dogs in 1922, and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. (Gorden P 1997) In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos, then given to humans. (Walgate R 1981). It is also worth mentioning that “Influenza caused an estimated twenty million deaths during the international pandemic of 1918; it was finally brought under control during World War II by vaccines developed using laboratory animals. …… that victory would have been impossible without using animals.” (Cohen 2001 P.78) moreover the reproduction and nutrition is based on findings of animal experiments. By these facts it is no exaggeration to say that it could not have been achieved without the use of animals

Furthermore  there is little chance of finding satisfying substitutions for animals, “even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in many areas.”(National Research Council of the National Academies 2004) animals are used mainly because they are similar to human either in behavior or in cell structure. There is much evidence that people know about themselves, including pain and stress.

Lastly animal testing is a legal requirement to test pharmaceutical drugs on animals before the drugs are distributed to the public for use. That testing proved one of the main approaches to predict the risk when the drug and other products are used on humans. New medications and other products are tested on lab animals to be sure they will not cause problems in humans. Most vaccines are developed from testing medications on animals to see if they become cured. Lab animals are also used to help train doctors and veterinarians to be able to practice doing operations before doing the operation on a person. As the BBC website maintained “No differences between lab animals and humans that can’t be factored into tests.”(BBC 2004) Finally Animal testing is a well regulated method to improve the safety of products and to help develop life saving medicines, for which there are no alternatives. This is currently the only way to test many products and must continue to be used to ensure our safety.

However, when the test product is noxious that Subject animals to pain and torture is truly barbaric. For example “Skin irritancy” and “Eye irritancy” which is put the test product in to rabbit’s eyes to observe for cause irritation and blindness (damaged eye) and signs of redness, swelling, discharge, ulceration and cloudiness. On the other hand, higher-level animals share with us feelings, thoughts and behaviors and so we should look after them and respect them. They may also feel that if we are so unsure about the effects of a drug for example then we should do further chemical testing before doing live and sometimes cruel animal testing. Also scientists are working hard to find more and better ways of applying them. For instance, using tissue cultures (cells kept alive in a test tube) to replace animals in experiment are extensively in current. Particularly in the early testing time when the whole animal first used in testing. In addition the number of animals using required in testing procedures were decreased obviously by employing cautious statistical analysis and substitutes for animals, and ending a noxious testing as soon as the point which human acceptable and then take care with refinement. (ANZCCART 2010,p.13) furthermore Replacing experiments on animals with alternative techniques such as: “experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals, using computer models ,Studying human volunteers and using epidemiological studies”

Some people assert that banning animal experiments because we do not need new tests because we already have vast amounts of information, besides this information from animals does not apply to humans. They point to certain commercial drugs which have been withdrawn because of side-effects in humans while it is true that animal systems differ from human systems, there are enough similarities to apply information from animals to humans. However, banning animal experiments would have two means: first is that many new deadly infections appear every year and new treatments and drugs are needed to combat these deadly plagues. Second is that it would be much more cruel to test new drugs on people or children, or to let people die because there was not enough information about a drug. Here is a good example to argue that information from animals does not apply to humans. There have 4 new HIV drugs, and three kind of animal for testing rats, mice and dogs. Drug A killed all kind of testing animals. Drug B and C killed two kind of them and drug D was taken by all the animals up to huge doses with no ill effect. Question: as the drug first dose to humans which drug should we choice to some adolescent volunteers. The answer is obviously it is drug D even drug D could cause damage to humans. That is true, which no one would like to give Drug, which killed animals, on humans. (William DH Carey, BMJ 2002; 324: 236a) Moreover, legislation in most countries sets standards for animal treatment, and laboratories have guidelines to prevent cruelty. If scientists succeed in working out the remedy by experiments, animals will survive as well as people with the help of the medicine.

In conclusion, animals should be used for scientific experiments. Animals should not be hurt without any meaning or purpose, but comparing to scientific research, we are compelled to hurt them, because animals are necessary of use in product development plus currently this is the only way to test products and will continue to be used to ensure our safety. Besides there is no denying that it is really unfair to animals, but we have no choice about it, because we have little chance of finding satisfying substitutions for animals. If we ban animal experiments it would be much crueler to test new drugs on people or children, or to let people die because there was not enough information about a drug.

Australian Government 2004, Australian code of practice for the care and use of

animals for scientific purposes 7th Edition p. 1

ANZCCART (Australian and New Zealand Council for the Care of Animals in Research &

Teaching), Benefits of animal-based science, Animal rights, Issues In Society,

vol.206,p.13

Australasian Legal Information Institute ANIMAL WELFARE ACT 2002, Western Australian

Consolidated Acts Last updated 22 April 2010

BBC, Ethics ,Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals

BBC Newstound human rights Arguments for animal testing Updated 28 January

2004,14.35

Cohen, C 2001,The Animal Rights Debate (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001) (pp.30.31.78)

Gorden, P 1997, “Non-insulin dependent diabetes–the past, present and future”. Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 26 (3): 326-30. 

Mock M, Fouet, A 2001, “Anthrax”. Annual Review of Microbiology. Vol. 55: 647-671

Ruesch, H 1989, 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection. Civis/Civitas.

Science, Medicine, and Animals, Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Published by the National Research Council of the National Academies 2004; page 2

The Royal Society 2004, the use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists, page 1

Walgate, R 1981, “Armadillos fight leprosy”. Nature 291 (5816): 527.