Here are the top reasons to stop animal testing if these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. While it is important to provide a full explanation of the reasons why animal research and testing is important for modern medicine, it can sometimes be useful to have a handful of short pro animal research one-liners on hand these work particularly well for twitter - which is why each of our lines below includes. There are two basic arguments against using nonhuman animals in biomedical research: a moral argument and a scientific one according to the moral argument, we should not use animals in biomedical research because the value of the knowledge gained from animal experimentation does not justify the harm inflicted on. Others also draw on ethical and scientific arguments but come to a different conclusion, arguing for an end to animal research some take absolutist positions for example, a few campaigning organisations question the scientific validity of all animal research and want an immediate end to the practice because they believe. Arguments have been introduced into the field (as we will see in the course of this paper) how- ever, in the midst of such intensification and evolution per se, the debate was faced with a contradictory situation, summed up in the state- ment by wolfensohn & lloyd (1995:11): “all use of animals in scientific research for. The study of animals is a vital part of this research process many basic cell processes are the same in all animals, and the bodies of animals are like humans in the way that they perform many vital functions such as breathing, digestion, movement, sight, hearing and reproduction to treat disease, doctors and scientists.
The immorality of biomedical animal experimentation most arguments for the immorality of animal experimentation [ae] take one of two forms: either they follow peter singer's lead and maintain that most animal experiments are morally unjustifiable on utilitarian grounds1 or they follow tom regan's deontological. We ask two experts for their arguments for and against animal testing. Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing read pros and cons in the debate. The use of animals for research is controversial and even though there are numerous benefits to animal research, the ethical concerns surrounding the argument over animal research trump most others the kinds of advances and benefits from animal research that researchers have made in understanding.
To every argument, there are two sides: the american medical association (ama ) and the people for the ethical treatment of humans (peta) ama's opinion on the topic states that animal testing is necessary, while peta highly discriminates it these two major groups of people have been “at war” with each other on this. Some of the world's leading university debaters took part, along with guest speakers on both sides of the argument involved in the wider discussion on animal rights and animal research alexander cavell, debate programmes coordinator for international debate education association uk, one of the.
Top 10 reasons animal testing should be banned whether or not products for human use should be tested on animals before proceeding to full scale human trials is one of the most emotive subjects ever to be debated people on both sides of the fence have very strong views some argue that there is. Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades according to data collected by f barbara orlans for her book, in the name of science: issues in responsible animal experimentation , sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and. Med health care philos 20025(1):23-31 animal experimentation: pro and con arguments using the theory of evolution nordgren a(1) author information: (1) department of public health and caring sciences (biomedical ethics), uppsala university, uppsala science park, sweden [email protected]
1 self- interest: animal test doesn't hurt human, and it helps human someone may say it's immoral, but how moral it is to test on human 2 no capable alternative choice: computer technology nowadays is basically based on the data of animal test. He believed that the scientific value of animal experimentation outweighs the negative effects on the scientists in their dealings with others notice that this consequentialist to rights as “nonsense on stilts”) it is somewhat ironic, then, that peter singer uses utilitarianism as the basis for arguing that animals have rights. Animal rights extremists often portray those who experiment on animals as being so cruel as to have forfeited any own moral standing but the argument is about whether the experiments are morally right or wrong the general moral character of the experimenter is irrelevant. Was cosmetic testing actually banned what did we really think about medical research in 2005, a crisis year in animal campaigning, a tiny group of animal rights activists brought the argument to a head by carrying out a number of stupid, offensive actions, including digging up the body of an animal.
A few weeks ago, two prominent scientists, hollis cline and mar sanchez, wrote a brief piece in the hill newspaper arguing that animal research is necessary they were prompted by the recent national institutes of health (nih) decision to phase out the use of primates in controversial maternal. My aim is to explain to you why some philosophers think using animals in scientific research is wrong - even when the research concerned produces substantial benefits for humans or other animals, and even if the procedures involved are humane their argument is straightforward: it would be wrong to use non-consenting.
However, there is an ongoing debate about the ethics of animal experimentation some people argue that all animal experimentation should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for furthering knowledge according to this point of view, an animal should have as much right as a human. Burke many readers are probably aware of the current resurgence of vocal opposition to the use of animals in scientific research though nothing fundamental has changed in the arguments and counter-arguments used by antivivisectionists and scientists, the new wave of anti-research propaganda and fund raising has. In this article, i am not going to discuss the moral issues involved in animal research what i am going to discuss is the seemingly scientific arguments that some opponents of animal research and animal rights activists like to invoke, arguments increasingly used in addition to the moral arguments that.
Vivisection, or what in polite society is merely called animal experimentation, is a barbaric practice that has led to some necessary medical breakthroughs but has mostly served to profit multinational pharmaceutical and cosmetic corporations i agree with the researchers who published in the british medical. Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study this approach can be contrasted with field studies in which animals are observed in their. The word has a negative connotation, implying torture, suffering and death3 the word 'vivisection' is preferred by those opposed to this research, whereas scientists typically use the term 'animal experimentation'4,5 supporters of the use of animals in experiments, such as the british royal society, argue that virtually every. These theorists take an absolutist stance on the abolition of animal experiments, arguing that animals have a moral right not to be used as tools in experiments this right, such thinkers argue, cannot simply be overridden when the benefits of an experiment outweigh its costs, because rights are meant to act as moral limits.