Posted: June 5th, 2023

Against Animal Testing

Against Animal Testing
Many arguments have been directed to animal testing in terms of ethics and scientific improvements. Many scientists claim the need for animal testing in order to improve science whilst some indicate that it is wrong since it inflicts pain and distress on animals. It is clear that 20 million animals are being experimented and killed every year. Three fourths of these animals are being used for medical purposes while the rest are used to test certain products. It has been estimated that eight million of these animals undergo much pain in experimentations. Certain reports indicate that 10% of the animals do not acquire painkillers during these experiments. Therefore, animal rights’ advocates go on missions every time to press government agencies to have restrictions on researches done on animals. However, developing criticism about painful testing on animals has been matched with growing concerns over threat restrictions on usage of animals would pose towards scientific progress (Hooijmans, & Ritskes-Hoitinga, 2010). Arguments have developed on whether animal experiments should be allowed to progress or should be stopped. The fact is that animal testing inflicts pain on animals, should be avoided and other techniques used in quality life improvement rather than inflicting pain on animals.
Those arguing that painful testing on animals should be curtailed or halted tend to have a belief that pain is intrinsically evil. They also suggest that actions that instill pain to other creatures are immoral and should not be permissible in any setting. Looking back to opinions of a famous utilitarian, Bentham Jeremy, welfare on animals’ advocates that the relevant question concerning animals is not whether they are able to talk, but they suffer from pain. It has been argued that a researcher that instills rats to choose electric shocks against starvation to determine if rats can develop ulcers does that in knowledge that they have nervous systems like human beings and can feel pain (Stanley, 2009). Bentham argued that pain can be experienced by animals as well as is intrinsically evil. Therefore, it is wrong to inflict pain in animals just as it is on human beings.
In addition, it has been argued that value should be placed on lives of creatures since they are also worthy of respect. Restricting respect for life has been criticized as injustice that is similar to sexism or racism. Animals are also subjects of life and justice holds that interests of animals must be respected. Respect for animals includes protecting them from undeserved pain. Animal welfare activists also defend their claims through suggestions that halting painful experiments on animals can help to put an end towards scientific progress, hence harmful consequences to the entire society. They also argue that most experiments on animals are done out of curiosity and tend to have little effects on scientific merit. This way, animals are starved, burned, poisoned and shocked in order to determine issues that yield human advantages. It has also been mentioned that out of sheer habits or easiness, scientists are continuously inflicting pain on animals.
In contradiction to several sensationalistic releases of animal rights’ activists, it has been discovered that scientists fear using painkillers on animals since they believe that they might interfere with researches that have diverse promises on improvement of quality and durations of human lives (Hooijmans, & Ritskes-Hoitinga, 2010). On the other hand, those that argue in support of animal experiments indicate that society has full obligations to determine ways that will enhance minimization of harm as well as maximize benefits. They indicate that halting or even curtailing painful testing on animals can drag the society behind. Moreover, they suggest that pain is an evil that can be minimized and they work to minimize the same whenever possible. Supporters of animal experiments have suggested that animal researches have been bases of newer vaccines, cancer therapies, new surgical techniques, Artificial limbs, organs, and development of many products and materials useful in human beings’ lives. Benefits acquired from animal experiments outweigh all the painful experiences that animals endure during the experiments. Therefore, supporters believe that society has a strong obligation to maximize opportunities towards production of beneficial consequences, even if it means inflicting pain on animals. The fact remains that inflicting pain in animals in attempts to improve quality of human lives is a wrongful idea and should be banned in today’s society. Researchers should determine other ways of dealing with scientific improvements.
Most importantly, arguments have occurred that moral rights should also apply to human beings and that morality refers to a social process in which the animals are not an exemption. Animals are considered part of the moral community hence researchers should have obligations towards them. However, emphasis has been placed on human beings in order to reduce sufferings and ultimate deaths that require painful testing of animals. Out of the above arguments, it is vital to look at the three Rs in animal experimentations and ethics. The three Rs form a set of policies to be followed by scientists in attempts of reduction of the effects of animal testing. The Rs include reduction, replacement and refinement. Reduction refers to decreasing number of animals used in testing through improvement of experimental techniques, improvement of data analysis techniques and sharing of information with researchers. On the other hand, refinement refers to ensuring that animals used in experiments are cared for in order to reduce suffering. This is done through utilization of less invasive methods in research, better medical care and provision of better living conditions. Moreover, replacement refers to use of alternative methods that include experimentation s of cell structures rather than on the entire animals, studying of human volunteers, using computer models and usage of epidemiological studies.
In his arguments, Kolar (2006) suggested that legislation of all animal experimentations in modern states has basis on supposition that more or less demands are met altogether with animal ethics. He continues to suggest that licensing of animal testing processes should be done with much ethical Assessment undertaken by ethics committee in order to determine their viability. On the other hand, there is an argument as to why installation of animal ethics in today’s society can prove difficult. A big problem would occur in attempting to instill the ideas and making them more practical. This is due to unclear conditions in ethical decisions, aim of experiments, and poor management of experiments carried out for special purposes. Conflicts among ethics committee members are also contributors of unethical practices in animal experimentations since members tend to differ in their interests. On his part, Swami (2008) suggested that as much as researchers want to discover new issues in human beings through animal testing, they should avoid any procedures that undermine animal welfare. Certain regulations have been set in place in attempts to control and ensure effectiveness of animal testing. For instance, Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876 was set in order to regulate experiments and introduce inspection and licensing system of animal testing processes (Stanley, 2009). From these arguments, animal testing has been discovered as oppressing activities to animals and should be avoided as much as possible.
Animals are living organisms, they are sentient beings and experimentations on animals take considerable toll into animal lives. Mostly, scientific researchers try to minimize pain as well as distress that are experienced by animals. However, suffering is nonetheless much inherent since animals tend to be held in isolated cages, sterile and forced to suffer from diseases and injuries or even euthanized at completion stages. Although most scientists are well intentioned in their experiments, several biomedical researchers do not recognize or even appreciate laboratory animals are living beings. Therefore, once considerations on animals have been brought down to these levels, callousness along with much insensitivity develops towards inflicting pain on animals (Ranganatha, 2012). Animals in laboratories have been treated as subjects that can easily be manipulated at any will since there is little value placed on their lives beyond purchase costs. Animals have rights not to undergo exploitation for scientific purposes and choices do not have to be made between helping to improve human life and harming animals.
Moreover, it has been discovered that animal studies fail to predict reliably on human results and that reliance on animal testing can impede or delay discoveries. Experiments on animals are flawed in their design and many drugs appearing promising through testing animals fail in most human clinical trials. Obvious and subtle diversities between animals and human beings in relation to physiology, metabolism and anatomy make it more difficult to engage data acquired from animal experiments into human conditions. In addition, animal models tend to be seldom subjects in similar causes, biological mechanisms and symptoms like purported human analogues (Swami, 2008). This is a suggestion that translating information from several human studies towards human patients tend to be activities of speculation. It is clear that patients and physicians are required to be cautious on extrapolating findings of prominent researches on animals to treat human diseases. Even quality animal experiments will replicate poorly into human clinical experiments (Hooijmans, & Ritskes-Hoitinga, 2010). Due to failures in animal researches relative to human treatment, it is wise to avoid inflicting pain into animals through testing and look for other ways of discovering human beings rather than through animals.
To conclude, animal experiments should be avoided in today’s societies. Studies have indicated that animal testing has not been much effective and efficient in discovering human beings and improving quality of life. Many differences exist between animals and human beings in terms of metabolism and physiological formation. This way, animal experiments will not always work towards human beings treatments. Another point to note is that animals are also living organisms and do not need to undergo pain in favor of human beings. Animal experiments inflict much pain on animals and this should be avoided since animals are also part of the community. Despite arguments of using painkillers in order to minimize pain on animals, some scientists have contradicted themselves by suggesting that they avoid painkillers in order to ensure efficiency in their researches. This is an indication of much pain inflicted on animals during experiments. Therefore, animal experiments should not be performance, but t other techniques should be used in quality life improvement.

References
Hooijmans, C. & Ritskes-Hoitinga, M. (2010). Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search
filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Laboratory Animals, 44(3), 170-175.
Kolar, R. (2006). Animal experimentation. Science and engineering Ethics, 12(1), 111- 122
Ranganatha, N. N. (2012). A review on alternatives to animal testing methods in drug
development. International Journal Of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, 28-32.
Stanley N.G. (2009). Animal experimentation – personal view. Nutrition Reviews, 67(2), 95-99
Swami, V. N. (2008). Free the animals? Attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United
States. Scandinavian Journal Of Psychology, 49(3), 269-276.
Taylor, R. (2005). Testing drugs on animals: a test case for socially responsible investment.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(2), 164-175.

Order | Check Discount