According to Michael and Birke (1994), it is quite common in the sociology of scientific knowledge to have scientific controversies. In such controversies, there may, or may not be “non-technical” argumentation. However, it is imperative to note that what is at stake, normally, is the validity and efficacy of given claims. As far as animal experimentation controversy goes, there are issues of efficacy and truth (Michael and Birke 89). In addition to that, there is a public morality component which questions the justness and the ethical defence of animal experimentation in pursuing scientific knowledge, medical benefit, or biomedical technique (Michael and Birke 89). Research involving animals is necessary and very important to human beings and to their quality of life.
Human beings have enjoyed increased life expectancy, rise in living standards and many more, as a result of these researches (Beck and Ferdowsian 25). For example preventive drugs, vaccines and drugs that can cure a wide range of diseases and infections are generally available today. These benefits are the outcomes of the scientific researches. The animals also benefit from the researches because most of the drugs used in veterinary are originally developed from human medicine. While there are objections to the use of animals in the pursuit of vital knowledge in science, and other fields, animals should still be used in research although such experiments should be controlled.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Animal Use In Research".
Anti- vivisectionists and animal rights extremists highly criticise the use of animals as study subjects on the grounds that first, animal rights are violated and second, it imposes on sentiment creatures, avoidable suffering; they believe that the use of animals in experiments is unnecessary and cruel regardless of the benefits (Beck and Ferdowsian 30). Their fears are shared by some scientists who appeal to their rational emotionality against the use of some animals because they have had long periods of contact with such or animals, or because they feel it would not be correct to use some animals like monkeys, or dogs, or cats (Michael and Birke 89). Some people hold that human beings have a general duty to do no harm to responsive creatures; some believe that human beings have a duty to do good to emotional animals when it is within their power (Rollin 285-304). Animals ought to be treated humanely that is with the graciousness and concern that human beings owe to other sentiment creatures (Drummond 713). Humane treatment however does not mean that the animals are treated as human-beings.
It must be well-known that the main reason why animals are used for researches is because; animals offer tentative models that would be impracticable or unethical to replicate using human beings; it would be unethical to intentionally expose humans to health risks to come out with results. Other reasons include, animals can be on the same diet and closely monitored, some species are genetically alike allowing researchers to compare and contrast different procedures (Beck and Ferdowsian). Some animals are closely related to human beings biologically that make them perfect experimental models for particular diseases, such as monkey for polio and rabbit for atherosclerosis. Most animals have short life spans and therefore can easily be studied even across many generations (Beck and Ferdowsian). The environment around animals can easily be controlled which might not be easy with human beings.
When weighing the pain and pleasures resulting from the researches carried out using animals, one must not fail to notice the intensity of the dreadful pains that would be suffered at the moment had the animals not been used for researches (Rollin 289). If such researches are curtailed then even the expected gains in human welfare that are in all probability achievable in the future will not be made possible (Rollin 290). This means that a lot of people and probably the entire human race would experience grievous consequences if the use of animals in researches is stopped.
However studies show that, animals’ possibility for experiencing harm during researches is higher than has been appreciated and that their protection need to be considered, it is now known that experimental animals are prone to experiencing pain and distress (Beck and Ferdowsian). Prospective causes of harm may include disease, invasive procedures, and denial of primary physiological needs (Rollin 285-304). Other sources of harm for several animals used in research include inability to accomplish natural behaviour, social deprivation among other factors. These are the points of arguments of those in the opposing side of this controversy.
Various studies have confirmed that, even in reaction to gentle management, animals are able to show noticeable changes in hormonal and physiological makers of stress (Cohen 865-870). Human being can only abstain from experimenting on animals if only the same results can be accomplished by using alternative methods.
There are principles that have been put down on how to handle laboratory animals (Beck and Ferdowsian). There is the Three Rs concept which is a widely accepted keystone of policies on animal related science worldwide. The Three Rs concept, (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) enlighten scientists on the principled use of animals in scientific researches. Replacement refers to alternative methods which rule out or replace the use of animals in researches, Reduction refers to any approach that will see to it that a fewer animals are being used and, Refinement refers to the adjustment of experimental procedures or husbandry to reduce pain or distress to the animals (Beck and Ferdowsian).
Human beings can stop from experimenting on animals if the required results can be accomplished using alternative results; this is what is termed as humane treatment of animals (Russell and Burch). These alternative methods include humans, cell cultures, vitro works, computer simulations and models and statistical modelling. These new techniques have reduced the number of animals used drastically by halving the number in the last three decades (Rollin 285-304). Some of the researches that are conducted using animals can be misleading because of the biological variations among species and therefore these tests may not produce reliable results hence the development of alternative methods that spare animals’ lives. Both sides of the controversy should agree that whilst they may be on opposing sides, a consensus should be reached; and it is that all experiments are geared towards innovation, and making the lives of human beings better. As such, experiments on animals should continue, but the ethical considerations and regulations must be put in place and followed universally.
Nonetheless it cannot be imagined that alternative methods can soon be used in the researches that currently use live animal subjects; some researches still need live subjects for progress (Michael and Birke 93). For example no other alternative method can be used to replace drug testing or a procedure in live animals. Where animals must be used for scientific experiments, the extent of distress and pain should be minimized by cautious use of anaesthesia and analgesics (Beck and Ferdowsian). There may be lack of progress without the use of animals in researches. In the U.S, federal regulations state that new drugs and other products should be tested on animals before exposing human beings to them for safety and efficacy; which would not have a pleasant result otherwise.
- Beck, Nancy and Hope R. Ferdowsian. Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. Washington, D.C., 2011.
- Cohen, Carl. “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” The New England Journal of Medicine. (1986): 315, 865-870.
- Committee on the Use of Animals in Research (U.S.); National Academy of Sciences (U.S.); Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Science, medicine, and animals. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991.
- Drummond, Gordon B. “Reporting ethical matters in the Journal of Physiology: standards and advice.” The Journal of physiology (2009): 587.4, 713-719.
- Michael, Mike and Linda Birke. “Enrolling the core set: The Case of Animal Experimentation Controversy.” Social Studies of Science. (1994): 24.1, 81-95.
