Robert Xu
Animal experimentation has been a part of research for centuries, with some of the earliest documented cases starting with the Greeks, who used animals to study anatomy (human dissection was generally frowned upon) (NU Sci Staff 2019) . Back then, regulations surrounding animal dissection and experimentation were not as strict compared to contemporary standards, since there were none, and there was little debate surrounding the ethics of animal experimentation. Fast forward to the Age of Enlightenment, however, the changing ideals and philosophies led to more and more debate on the ethics of subjecting animals to experiments and processes that they should not subject humans to. Later, during the 1800s, debate grew ever fiercer, until finally the first modern laws surrounding animal experimentation were passed in Great Britain (Fraser 2018). But even with the controversies surrounding animal experimentation, its importance cannot be understated and continues to be a keystone of research and development, with an estimated 50 to 100 million vertebrates used for experimentation every year (Taylor et al. 2008). The topic of animal experimentation has still not been resolved, with many arguments for and against the ethical nature of animal experimentation.
The ethical arguments for animal experimentation are generally that the results of animal experimentation justify the suffering of the animals induced. Because of animal experimentation, many human lives are saved due to the development of drugs and medicine. For example, the zebrafish is translucent during its embryonic stage, and can be helpful studying the effect of drugs on fetuses and unborn children. Mice, which share upward of 90% of their genes with humans, make up the bulk of animal experimentation due to their quick reproductive rates and the aforementioned similarity to humans, and they are used in a variety of experiments ranging from topics such as genetic disorders to environmental hazards (Rosenthal and Brown 2007). Without these animals, the development of life-saving drugs would have taken longer or never occurred. A particular example that is important is the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937, where the drug killed more than 100 individuals, sparking outrage and prompting the US Congress to make drug testing on animals mandatory before being sold on the market (Ballentine). It became clear that, in the past, animal experimentation has been crucial in saving lives. The crux of this argument, however, rests on the ethical assumption that human lives are more important than the animals frequently tested on. One argument is that humans' ability to rationalize makes them a more important organism than, for example, mice or flies, which although possess some degree of cognitive thought, are incapable of higher order thinking at the same level of humans (Bernstein 2015). Another argument is that humans do not have the same level of moral responsibility for other organisms as they do for another human, because they all belong to the human moral community, a group of individuals who have a number of traits in common, such as their cognitive ability and physiological similarity (Liou 2010). Because humans are all part of this human moral community, people owe each other the right to self-autonomy and freedom that does not need to be awarded to organisms outside of this community.
Ethical arguments against animal experimentation usually include two main points: that human lives are not more important than animal lives and that animal experimentation is not necessary. For the argument against human lives being more important because of an elevated cognitive ability, individuals raise the case of human infants. Infants are not at the same level as adults in cognitive ability, and some animals like dolphins or bonobos are capable of more advanced reasoning than them, but infants are afforded the same level of protection as adult humans and are not experimented on like these animals (Liou 2010). They argue that our reasoning for favoring humans over animals has no moral basis, and is incredibly arbitrary and based on our own selfish perspectives. Stephen Hawking and a child with severe Down Syndrome are, using academic ability, on different ends of the cognitive spectrum, yet are awarded the same human rights, so why should the basis of species differentiate humans and other animals? The other argument is that new advancements in technology and new testing methods are making animal experimentation less and less necessary, and thus its value no longer justifies its ethical cost. New methods of testing that do not include animals include in vitro testing, where human cells and tissues are used, in silico testing, where advanced computer modeling techniques are used, and human volunteer studies (PETA 2010). These and other methods are gradually decreasing the need for animals in experiments, and indeed there has been a gradual trend in the past years of a decrease in animal experimentation, with the total number of animals used in the US decreasing 50% since the mid 1990s (Chereskin 2018).
Animal experimentation raises key questions surrounding animal ethics, and the importance of their lives. While animal experimentation is intricately tied to the history of scientific advancement, with the rise of new techniques, as well as old questions surrounding morality, its significance seems to not be as much as before, causing an increase in the need for a reevaluation.
References:
NU Sci Staff. The history behind animal testing in research. NU Sci. 2019 Oct 30 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://nuscimag.com/the-history-behind-animal-testing-in-research-f77c11d306f3
Fraser D. Animal welfare. In: Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare. Elsevier; 2018. p. 129–143.
Taylor K, Gordon N, Langley G, Higgins W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA. 2008 [accessed 2020 dec 6];36(3):327–342.
Rosenthal N, Brown S. The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models. Nature cell biology. 2007;9(9):993–999.
Ballentine C. FDA Consumer magazine. Fda.gov. [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/The-Sulfanilamide-Disaster.pdf
Bernstein M.. Ndpr.nd.edu. 2015 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-moral-equality-of-humans-and-animals/
Liou S. The ethics of animal experimentation. Stanford.edu. 2010 Jul 7 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://hopes.stanford.edu/animal-research/
PETA. In vitro methods and more animal testing alternatives. Peta.org. 2010 Jun 22 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/
Chereskin L. Government report shows decrease in animal use--but there’s a catch. Navs.org. 2018 Oct 15 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://www.navs.org/government-report-shows-decrease-in-animal-use-but-theres-a-catch/
The ethical arguments for animal experimentation are generally that the results of animal experimentation justify the suffering of the animals induced. Because of animal experimentation, many human lives are saved due to the development of drugs and medicine. For example, the zebrafish is translucent during its embryonic stage, and can be helpful studying the effect of drugs on fetuses and unborn children. Mice, which share upward of 90% of their genes with humans, make up the bulk of animal experimentation due to their quick reproductive rates and the aforementioned similarity to humans, and they are used in a variety of experiments ranging from topics such as genetic disorders to environmental hazards (Rosenthal and Brown 2007). Without these animals, the development of life-saving drugs would have taken longer or never occurred. A particular example that is important is the Elixir Sulfanilamide disaster of 1937, where the drug killed more than 100 individuals, sparking outrage and prompting the US Congress to make drug testing on animals mandatory before being sold on the market (Ballentine). It became clear that, in the past, animal experimentation has been crucial in saving lives. The crux of this argument, however, rests on the ethical assumption that human lives are more important than the animals frequently tested on. One argument is that humans' ability to rationalize makes them a more important organism than, for example, mice or flies, which although possess some degree of cognitive thought, are incapable of higher order thinking at the same level of humans (Bernstein 2015). Another argument is that humans do not have the same level of moral responsibility for other organisms as they do for another human, because they all belong to the human moral community, a group of individuals who have a number of traits in common, such as their cognitive ability and physiological similarity (Liou 2010). Because humans are all part of this human moral community, people owe each other the right to self-autonomy and freedom that does not need to be awarded to organisms outside of this community.
Ethical arguments against animal experimentation usually include two main points: that human lives are not more important than animal lives and that animal experimentation is not necessary. For the argument against human lives being more important because of an elevated cognitive ability, individuals raise the case of human infants. Infants are not at the same level as adults in cognitive ability, and some animals like dolphins or bonobos are capable of more advanced reasoning than them, but infants are afforded the same level of protection as adult humans and are not experimented on like these animals (Liou 2010). They argue that our reasoning for favoring humans over animals has no moral basis, and is incredibly arbitrary and based on our own selfish perspectives. Stephen Hawking and a child with severe Down Syndrome are, using academic ability, on different ends of the cognitive spectrum, yet are awarded the same human rights, so why should the basis of species differentiate humans and other animals? The other argument is that new advancements in technology and new testing methods are making animal experimentation less and less necessary, and thus its value no longer justifies its ethical cost. New methods of testing that do not include animals include in vitro testing, where human cells and tissues are used, in silico testing, where advanced computer modeling techniques are used, and human volunteer studies (PETA 2010). These and other methods are gradually decreasing the need for animals in experiments, and indeed there has been a gradual trend in the past years of a decrease in animal experimentation, with the total number of animals used in the US decreasing 50% since the mid 1990s (Chereskin 2018).
Animal experimentation raises key questions surrounding animal ethics, and the importance of their lives. While animal experimentation is intricately tied to the history of scientific advancement, with the rise of new techniques, as well as old questions surrounding morality, its significance seems to not be as much as before, causing an increase in the need for a reevaluation.
References:
NU Sci Staff. The history behind animal testing in research. NU Sci. 2019 Oct 30 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://nuscimag.com/the-history-behind-animal-testing-in-research-f77c11d306f3
Fraser D. Animal welfare. In: Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare. Elsevier; 2018. p. 129–143.
Taylor K, Gordon N, Langley G, Higgins W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005. Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA. 2008 [accessed 2020 dec 6];36(3):327–342.
Rosenthal N, Brown S. The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models. Nature cell biology. 2007;9(9):993–999.
Ballentine C. FDA Consumer magazine. Fda.gov. [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://www.fda.gov/files/about%20fda/published/The-Sulfanilamide-Disaster.pdf
Bernstein M.. Ndpr.nd.edu. 2015 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-moral-equality-of-humans-and-animals/
Liou S. The ethics of animal experimentation. Stanford.edu. 2010 Jul 7 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://hopes.stanford.edu/animal-research/
PETA. In vitro methods and more animal testing alternatives. Peta.org. 2010 Jun 22 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/
Chereskin L. Government report shows decrease in animal use--but there’s a catch. Navs.org. 2018 Oct 15 [accessed 2020 dec 6]. https://www.navs.org/government-report-shows-decrease-in-animal-use-but-theres-a-catch/
Proudly powered by Weebly