kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
This is the small discursive essay i wrote when i was approached to show and explain the animal testing issue and both sides of the argument, which naturally include the pro-animal testing and the anti-vivisectionist argument. Hope you enjoy.
For years, ever since Science became a legitimate practice in society, has there been the argument for and against animal testing. Animal testing, which is practised on creatures on a scale of 90 to 100 million animals annually, is a common practice in the modern world of Science, and also probably one of the most controversial topics in this field. Though it is correct to say that animal participants in biological and surgical experiments has given scientists no shortage of accomplices to carry out medical procedures on, and therefore greatly advance the field of medicine and our understanding of the biological body, it is also correct to say that animals, on an international scale, are being abused, exposed to stress, pain and harm in the process, and therefore leading to situations where scientists are being “negligent”, “insensitive” and “cruel” to the animal, according to anti-vivisectionists. The question here, however, is what legal bases does an animal have? A position proposed by Tom Regan is such that animals are beings with feelings, beliefs and self-consciousness, like us human beings, and therefore have inherent value and thus possessing rights, though there is a fine ethnical line between the killing of an animal and the killing of a human, particularly the killing of an animal for reasons which are intended to be ethical for the progression of Science and therefore the saving of the lives of many humans.
The argument for animal testing can be quiet legitimate in many cases though the way in which individual scientists and institutions practice animal testing can create flaws in this argument. For example, in 1985 a macaque Monkey removed from its mother at birth in the University of California, Riverside, was left isolated and its eyes sewn shut at birth, with a sonar sensor attached to its head to map the growth of sensory development when a sensory medium is lost, in a bid to understand what happens to sensory growth in humans who are blind. Another instance of animal cruelty during animal testing for scientific purposes involves a case in the University of Colombia by E. Sander Connolly who allegedly caused strokes to Baboons by using cruel methods which involved the removal of the eye socket to reach a vital vessel attached to the brain. Connolly placed a clamp on the vessel to stop blood flow until a stroke was induced. Such bad practiced by individuals can undermine the arguments by scientists who believe animal testing is a correct way to advance medical Science. In recent years, however, the argument for animal testing has been strengthened by state regulations and laws that protect the rights of animals but still allow for animal testing under certain conditions. Most Scientists believe in the testing of animals for scientific purposes as long as it is done under the condition the animal is not exposed to pain or psychologically distressing situations, and that any pain that is inevitable during testing should be relieved with anaesthesia. Scientists believe that if these conditions are met, then there are no reasons for animals not to be used as specimens during an experiment, especially because they provide abundant means for medicine to be tested, which has been the cause of the vast progression and innovation of medicinal advancements in the 20th and 21st century. It is a common practice, especially in countries with a developed or developing medicinal and scientific industry, to use animals during testing to map the effects of certain medicine on a smaller, less complex scale then the human body, and to use animals as a means of testing medicine where the vast majority of people would not like to participate in or would be illegal to participate in because it could cause death. There is also a more ethical side to the pro-animal testing argument, whereby the use of animals for scientific purposes where a life may be sacrificed is necessary for the safety and health for millions of humans globally. More extreme opinions by scientists also include the argument that animals do not feel pain the way humans do due to a lack of consciousness.
The anti-animal testing argument, or most commonly, the anti-vivisectionalist argument as I will refer to in this essay, base their arguments on varying reasons which have changed greatly over the last 120 years. Common reasons involve the insensitivity of scientists and institutions as a whole towards animals, the way the animals due for testing are housed and looked after, and the psychologically distressing, and painful situations in which they are exposed, and the government’s inability to regulate such a largely practiced activity. Even in the European Union where laws were passed to virtually stop the sales of animal tested products and strictly regulate scientific practices, abuses are constantly happening despite this. Anti-vivisectionalist’s also believe that the Psychological strain placed on the animals for prolonged periods of time due to bad housing enviournments and constant testing, changes the neurological formation of the brain and therefore intervenes with medicinal efforts and produces incorrect results, and that animals are biologically unsophisticated compared to the human body, which reduces the accuracy of the tests. It is also widely believed that state laws are not strict enough or scientific practices regulated closely enough by the government for such laws to be considered effective, particularly in the US. Anti-vivisectionalists also believe that animal testing violates the basic rights of animals which, as beings with feelings, aims and consciousness, inherently have like human beings, saying because such practices are carried out against their knowledge and will, that the government is openly supporting the violation of such rights.
My personal conclusion is a mixture of both arguments. I believe in the importance of medicine and science which we will all inevitably rely on in the future to ensure us our own health and safety, and such medicinal practices cannot be advanced fast enough if animal testing is banned, as only a small minority of willing people will be prepared to accept the position as a participant. It will lead to a lack of testing in the field of medicine and slow down the growth of the industry which is still very small in proportion to human suffering caused by incurable illnesses, and lead to dangerous scenarios such as untested medicine which will risk the lives of human beings. If the animal testing is done under human conditions, whereby the animal is relieved of pain using anaesthesia and is housed and treated properly as to minimize psychological distress, and animal testing is done under the conditions that it will be carried out not merely because of curiosity, and that death is not inevitable, then there is no reason not to keep the status quo.
Using Animals in Scientific Research
For years, ever since Science became a legitimate practice in society, has there been the argument for and against animal testing. Animal testing, which is practised on creatures on a scale of 90 to 100 million animals annually, is a common practice in the modern world of Science, and also probably one of the most controversial topics in this field. Though it is correct to say that animal participants in biological and surgical experiments has given scientists no shortage of accomplices to carry out medical procedures on, and therefore greatly advance the field of medicine and our understanding of the biological body, it is also correct to say that animals, on an international scale, are being abused, exposed to stress, pain and harm in the process, and therefore leading to situations where scientists are being “negligent”, “insensitive” and “cruel” to the animal, according to anti-vivisectionists. The question here, however, is what legal bases does an animal have? A position proposed by Tom Regan is such that animals are beings with feelings, beliefs and self-consciousness, like us human beings, and therefore have inherent value and thus possessing rights, though there is a fine ethnical line between the killing of an animal and the killing of a human, particularly the killing of an animal for reasons which are intended to be ethical for the progression of Science and therefore the saving of the lives of many humans.
The argument for animal testing can be quiet legitimate in many cases though the way in which individual scientists and institutions practice animal testing can create flaws in this argument. For example, in 1985 a macaque Monkey removed from its mother at birth in the University of California, Riverside, was left isolated and its eyes sewn shut at birth, with a sonar sensor attached to its head to map the growth of sensory development when a sensory medium is lost, in a bid to understand what happens to sensory growth in humans who are blind. Another instance of animal cruelty during animal testing for scientific purposes involves a case in the University of Colombia by E. Sander Connolly who allegedly caused strokes to Baboons by using cruel methods which involved the removal of the eye socket to reach a vital vessel attached to the brain. Connolly placed a clamp on the vessel to stop blood flow until a stroke was induced. Such bad practiced by individuals can undermine the arguments by scientists who believe animal testing is a correct way to advance medical Science. In recent years, however, the argument for animal testing has been strengthened by state regulations and laws that protect the rights of animals but still allow for animal testing under certain conditions. Most Scientists believe in the testing of animals for scientific purposes as long as it is done under the condition the animal is not exposed to pain or psychologically distressing situations, and that any pain that is inevitable during testing should be relieved with anaesthesia. Scientists believe that if these conditions are met, then there are no reasons for animals not to be used as specimens during an experiment, especially because they provide abundant means for medicine to be tested, which has been the cause of the vast progression and innovation of medicinal advancements in the 20th and 21st century. It is a common practice, especially in countries with a developed or developing medicinal and scientific industry, to use animals during testing to map the effects of certain medicine on a smaller, less complex scale then the human body, and to use animals as a means of testing medicine where the vast majority of people would not like to participate in or would be illegal to participate in because it could cause death. There is also a more ethical side to the pro-animal testing argument, whereby the use of animals for scientific purposes where a life may be sacrificed is necessary for the safety and health for millions of humans globally. More extreme opinions by scientists also include the argument that animals do not feel pain the way humans do due to a lack of consciousness.
The anti-animal testing argument, or most commonly, the anti-vivisectionalist argument as I will refer to in this essay, base their arguments on varying reasons which have changed greatly over the last 120 years. Common reasons involve the insensitivity of scientists and institutions as a whole towards animals, the way the animals due for testing are housed and looked after, and the psychologically distressing, and painful situations in which they are exposed, and the government’s inability to regulate such a largely practiced activity. Even in the European Union where laws were passed to virtually stop the sales of animal tested products and strictly regulate scientific practices, abuses are constantly happening despite this. Anti-vivisectionalist’s also believe that the Psychological strain placed on the animals for prolonged periods of time due to bad housing enviournments and constant testing, changes the neurological formation of the brain and therefore intervenes with medicinal efforts and produces incorrect results, and that animals are biologically unsophisticated compared to the human body, which reduces the accuracy of the tests. It is also widely believed that state laws are not strict enough or scientific practices regulated closely enough by the government for such laws to be considered effective, particularly in the US. Anti-vivisectionalists also believe that animal testing violates the basic rights of animals which, as beings with feelings, aims and consciousness, inherently have like human beings, saying because such practices are carried out against their knowledge and will, that the government is openly supporting the violation of such rights.
My personal conclusion is a mixture of both arguments. I believe in the importance of medicine and science which we will all inevitably rely on in the future to ensure us our own health and safety, and such medicinal practices cannot be advanced fast enough if animal testing is banned, as only a small minority of willing people will be prepared to accept the position as a participant. It will lead to a lack of testing in the field of medicine and slow down the growth of the industry which is still very small in proportion to human suffering caused by incurable illnesses, and lead to dangerous scenarios such as untested medicine which will risk the lives of human beings. If the animal testing is done under human conditions, whereby the animal is relieved of pain using anaesthesia and is housed and treated properly as to minimize psychological distress, and animal testing is done under the conditions that it will be carried out not merely because of curiosity, and that death is not inevitable, then there is no reason not to keep the status quo.
Last edited:
