It Feels it Just the Same: Animal Experimentation
Author: Eleanor Rollings
Animal experimentation is one part of many in the fight for animal rights. The main goal of animal activist is, “. . . to stop the intentional and/or unintentional mistreatment of animals used in experiments for the scientific advancement of the human race”(Begley, pg. 66). Animal experimentation was first challenged by the antivivisectionists in the Nineteenth Century. Antivivisectionist were those who were against the dissection of live animals. “Today animal welfare advocates primarily refer to the insignificance of most research, the needless duplication of experimentation, the use of too many animals, and the unnecessary pain and distress to which many laboratory animals are subjected to,”(Friedman, pg. 5). Researchers argue that without animal experimentation, scientific advancement would not be at the current stage it is at now. This may be true, but boundaries need to be enforced that will keep animals from being exploited and mistreated, and still allow efficient and necessary experiments to continue.
When discussing which experiments will be beneficial, the philosophical and ethical aspects must be looked at. Experiments that are felt as necessary and are carried out by scientist should not cause any pain or distress to the animals being used in the experiment. Peter Singer’s “utilitarian”(Singer, pg. 79) view, weighs the pain and distress felt by the animals against the benefits derived from such tests. “. . . that because there is small benefit to science compared to the pain experienced by the animals, experiments should be severely restricted”(Singer, pg. 81). Because these animals can feel pain inflicted upon them during experiments, test should be as painless as possible. Animals can experience sensations as humans do. Tom Regan brings up an interesting point about animal rights. “. . . regardless of the species of the animal, all should posses equal value and rights. For humans to treat non-human animals as if they were of lesser value constitutes ‘speceism’, analogous with racism or sexism”(Regan, 227). To treat another species as if it were lesser than you is similar to racism. Animals can feel and react when subjected to pain. They may not be as intelligent as humans, but animals should and need to be protected from cruel tests.
Animal experimentation provides direct importance and gives advantages to humans. Animal testing helped discover heart valves and insulin. The production of vaccines and antibodies, and the diagnosis of diseases can be attributed to the use of animal experimentation.
Animals are routinely used in three areas; biological and medical education,
toxicology testing where potentially harmful products are tested, and in the
original and applied research which includes not only research into the
causes and treatment of various diseases but also into the basic biochemical
nature and behavior of living organisms. (Regan, 363).
Testing animals is beneficial to humans, but controversy is stirred up when the test involve absurd amounts of test animals or tests are not conducted in a professional or purposeful manner.
Perhaps the largest area of debate on animal testing is the toxicity testing. This area includes the testing of cosmetics, cleaning products, and other commercial products on animals. Two cruel test that are performed in this are the LD50 and Draize Eye test. The LD50 test is a test in which “. . . industries would use this test to satisfy government testing requirements of potentially toxic substances. The companies feed large amounts of the substance to animals until half of them die and the other half become sick” (Heneson, pg. 475). The Draize Eye test is, “. . . companies put drops of concentrated substances such as shampoo in the eyes of rabbits that are fastened open”(James, pg. 87). These test certainly can determine the damage of the product, but they also step out of reasonable bounRAB due to the fact that the animals are exposed to pain, become seriously ill, and/or die cruelly. These test are inhumane and there are alternatives to them that are reasonable.
Due to growing support of animal rights, a nuraber of laws have been passed in regarRAB to the treatment of animals. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 regulates the transportation of dogs, cats, and other animals destined to be used in experiments in laboratories. It was amended in 1970 and stated, “. . . humane standarRAB for handling, care, treatment, and transport of animals, as well as giving the Secretary of Agriculture the responsibility to invest and inspect animals facilities, and to confiscate or destroy suffering animals”(Charabers, pg. 115). It later was amended to include the sale or use of animals illegally obtained. These acts show that there is a growing concern for animal rights in America. “Researchers must train their personnel in humane techniques and methoRAB of handling animals”(Charabers, pg.120). Because research will always need animals for testing, these laws have helped in establish boundaries for testing and protecting animal rights.
Alternatives to animal testing are surfacing. Although alternative methoRAB will and should never completely replace animal testing, they will reduce the demand for animal experimentation. “Research for alternatives to animal testing are guided by the ‘three R’s.’ These ‘R’s’ are; refinement of experimental techniques to reduce pain, replacement of animals with non-animal procedures, and the reduction of nurabers of animals used in experimentation”(Cottingham, pg. 557). The National Institute of Health now requires its grantees to consider alternatives. The Food and Drug Administration does not require the LD50 test anymore. The Draize Eye test has also been modified so that “Lower concentrations of chemicals are used, and sloughed cells are collected for quantitative measurement of irrantancy”(James, pg. 8). This test is now less harsh on the rabbits and allow just as good feedback to the scientists. Another test, the Ames test, uses bacteria for initial testing for toxic chemicals. The Ames test is less costly and quicker than the use of animals. There are numerous other test being used instead of animal test. They can be costly but there are the perfect alternative to being cruel to the animals. Although sciencetist are now devolping less costly ways and everyday is a victory or a step closer to closing down animal cruelty. Some of the test include computer generation and math analysis, chromatography and spectroscopy. These test do not employ animals and are as useful to scientist. Both scientist and activist want tests to be reduced, but for different reasons. Scientist would like the test to be faster and cheaper and the activist want the test to be more humane and ethical. The question may be where is the median? Well, these alternative test reduce the amount of animals used, and both scientist and activist are happy with the outcome.
Due to animal rights groups, animals rights as creatures of this earth, are now more protected than ever. There are guidelines to how they can be treated; when being experimented on. Now the handlers are trained properly to do their job. Fortunantly, animals are now treated with more respect that they do feel the pain of these experiments. There are also, several alternatives to testing on animals that are currently being used. Cruel animal testing is still largely practiced by many companies but today many companies are practicing good habits for treating animals. Animals don’t have to live in fear of people but now both people and animals can work together. It is a sad story of how creatures are being treated but they can be protected from the cruelity. If a creature feels pain just the same as another, then why is it right for one to cruelly test products on the other?
Bibliography
Begley, Sharon, Mary Hager and Susan Katz. “Liberation in the Labs; Animal-Rights Groups are Gaining Clout and Respect.” Newsweek. v. 104, August 27, 1984. pages 66-67.
Carter-Long, Laurence. “Retirement for Animals Used in Research--A Difficult Decision.” Animal Issues, v. 29, Fall 1998. pages 13-15
Carter-Long, Laurence. “Life Without Mother.” Animal Issues, v. 28, Winter 1997. pages 40-43
Charabers, K. Tate, and Katherine Hines. “Recent Developments Concerning the Use of Animals in Medical Research.” Journal of Legal Medicine, v. 4, March 1983. pages 109-127
Cottingham, John. “A Brute to the Brutes?” Philosophy, v. 53, October 1978. pages 551-559.
Day, Nancy. Animal Experimentation-Cruelty or Science? New York, NY: Enslow Publishers, Inc, 1994. pages 8-15
French, Richard D. “Animal Experimentation: I. Historical Aspects.” Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: The Free Press, v. 1, 1978. pages 75-79.
Friedman, Ruth. “Animal Experimentation and Animal Rights.” Orxy Science Bibliographies, v. 9, Orxy Press, 1987. pages 1-9
Heneson, Nancy. “America Agencies Denounce LD50 Test.” New Scientist, v. 100, Noveraber 17, 1983. pages 475.
James, Carolyn. “A Rabbit’s-Eye View.” Science ‘84, v. 5, March 1984. pages 88-89.
Perry, Tina. “Unsafe on Any Plate” Animal Issues, v. 29, Summer 1998. pages 60-64
Pranger, John. “Not a Pretty Picture” Animal Rights Resource. http://arrs.envirolink.org/suppSpeak/not_pretty.html
Pratt, Dallas. Painful Experiments on Animals. New York, NY: Argus Archives, 1976, pages 207.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkley, Ca: University of California Press, 1983. pages 227, 363.
Singer, Peter. “Animal Experimentation. II. Philosophical Perspectives. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York, NY: The Free Press, v. 1, 1978. pages 79-83
Author: Eleanor Rollings
Animal experimentation is one part of many in the fight for animal rights. The main goal of animal activist is, “. . . to stop the intentional and/or unintentional mistreatment of animals used in experiments for the scientific advancement of the human race”(Begley, pg. 66). Animal experimentation was first challenged by the antivivisectionists in the Nineteenth Century. Antivivisectionist were those who were against the dissection of live animals. “Today animal welfare advocates primarily refer to the insignificance of most research, the needless duplication of experimentation, the use of too many animals, and the unnecessary pain and distress to which many laboratory animals are subjected to,”(Friedman, pg. 5). Researchers argue that without animal experimentation, scientific advancement would not be at the current stage it is at now. This may be true, but boundaries need to be enforced that will keep animals from being exploited and mistreated, and still allow efficient and necessary experiments to continue.
When discussing which experiments will be beneficial, the philosophical and ethical aspects must be looked at. Experiments that are felt as necessary and are carried out by scientist should not cause any pain or distress to the animals being used in the experiment. Peter Singer’s “utilitarian”(Singer, pg. 79) view, weighs the pain and distress felt by the animals against the benefits derived from such tests. “. . . that because there is small benefit to science compared to the pain experienced by the animals, experiments should be severely restricted”(Singer, pg. 81). Because these animals can feel pain inflicted upon them during experiments, test should be as painless as possible. Animals can experience sensations as humans do. Tom Regan brings up an interesting point about animal rights. “. . . regardless of the species of the animal, all should posses equal value and rights. For humans to treat non-human animals as if they were of lesser value constitutes ‘speceism’, analogous with racism or sexism”(Regan, 227). To treat another species as if it were lesser than you is similar to racism. Animals can feel and react when subjected to pain. They may not be as intelligent as humans, but animals should and need to be protected from cruel tests.
Animal experimentation provides direct importance and gives advantages to humans. Animal testing helped discover heart valves and insulin. The production of vaccines and antibodies, and the diagnosis of diseases can be attributed to the use of animal experimentation.
Animals are routinely used in three areas; biological and medical education,
toxicology testing where potentially harmful products are tested, and in the
original and applied research which includes not only research into the
causes and treatment of various diseases but also into the basic biochemical
nature and behavior of living organisms. (Regan, 363).
Testing animals is beneficial to humans, but controversy is stirred up when the test involve absurd amounts of test animals or tests are not conducted in a professional or purposeful manner.
Perhaps the largest area of debate on animal testing is the toxicity testing. This area includes the testing of cosmetics, cleaning products, and other commercial products on animals. Two cruel test that are performed in this are the LD50 and Draize Eye test. The LD50 test is a test in which “. . . industries would use this test to satisfy government testing requirements of potentially toxic substances. The companies feed large amounts of the substance to animals until half of them die and the other half become sick” (Heneson, pg. 475). The Draize Eye test is, “. . . companies put drops of concentrated substances such as shampoo in the eyes of rabbits that are fastened open”(James, pg. 87). These test certainly can determine the damage of the product, but they also step out of reasonable bounRAB due to the fact that the animals are exposed to pain, become seriously ill, and/or die cruelly. These test are inhumane and there are alternatives to them that are reasonable.
Due to growing support of animal rights, a nuraber of laws have been passed in regarRAB to the treatment of animals. The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 regulates the transportation of dogs, cats, and other animals destined to be used in experiments in laboratories. It was amended in 1970 and stated, “. . . humane standarRAB for handling, care, treatment, and transport of animals, as well as giving the Secretary of Agriculture the responsibility to invest and inspect animals facilities, and to confiscate or destroy suffering animals”(Charabers, pg. 115). It later was amended to include the sale or use of animals illegally obtained. These acts show that there is a growing concern for animal rights in America. “Researchers must train their personnel in humane techniques and methoRAB of handling animals”(Charabers, pg.120). Because research will always need animals for testing, these laws have helped in establish boundaries for testing and protecting animal rights.
Alternatives to animal testing are surfacing. Although alternative methoRAB will and should never completely replace animal testing, they will reduce the demand for animal experimentation. “Research for alternatives to animal testing are guided by the ‘three R’s.’ These ‘R’s’ are; refinement of experimental techniques to reduce pain, replacement of animals with non-animal procedures, and the reduction of nurabers of animals used in experimentation”(Cottingham, pg. 557). The National Institute of Health now requires its grantees to consider alternatives. The Food and Drug Administration does not require the LD50 test anymore. The Draize Eye test has also been modified so that “Lower concentrations of chemicals are used, and sloughed cells are collected for quantitative measurement of irrantancy”(James, pg. 8). This test is now less harsh on the rabbits and allow just as good feedback to the scientists. Another test, the Ames test, uses bacteria for initial testing for toxic chemicals. The Ames test is less costly and quicker than the use of animals. There are numerous other test being used instead of animal test. They can be costly but there are the perfect alternative to being cruel to the animals. Although sciencetist are now devolping less costly ways and everyday is a victory or a step closer to closing down animal cruelty. Some of the test include computer generation and math analysis, chromatography and spectroscopy. These test do not employ animals and are as useful to scientist. Both scientist and activist want tests to be reduced, but for different reasons. Scientist would like the test to be faster and cheaper and the activist want the test to be more humane and ethical. The question may be where is the median? Well, these alternative test reduce the amount of animals used, and both scientist and activist are happy with the outcome.
Due to animal rights groups, animals rights as creatures of this earth, are now more protected than ever. There are guidelines to how they can be treated; when being experimented on. Now the handlers are trained properly to do their job. Fortunantly, animals are now treated with more respect that they do feel the pain of these experiments. There are also, several alternatives to testing on animals that are currently being used. Cruel animal testing is still largely practiced by many companies but today many companies are practicing good habits for treating animals. Animals don’t have to live in fear of people but now both people and animals can work together. It is a sad story of how creatures are being treated but they can be protected from the cruelity. If a creature feels pain just the same as another, then why is it right for one to cruelly test products on the other?
Bibliography
Begley, Sharon, Mary Hager and Susan Katz. “Liberation in the Labs; Animal-Rights Groups are Gaining Clout and Respect.” Newsweek. v. 104, August 27, 1984. pages 66-67.
Carter-Long, Laurence. “Retirement for Animals Used in Research--A Difficult Decision.” Animal Issues, v. 29, Fall 1998. pages 13-15
Carter-Long, Laurence. “Life Without Mother.” Animal Issues, v. 28, Winter 1997. pages 40-43
Charabers, K. Tate, and Katherine Hines. “Recent Developments Concerning the Use of Animals in Medical Research.” Journal of Legal Medicine, v. 4, March 1983. pages 109-127
Cottingham, John. “A Brute to the Brutes?” Philosophy, v. 53, October 1978. pages 551-559.
Day, Nancy. Animal Experimentation-Cruelty or Science? New York, NY: Enslow Publishers, Inc, 1994. pages 8-15
French, Richard D. “Animal Experimentation: I. Historical Aspects.” Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: The Free Press, v. 1, 1978. pages 75-79.
Friedman, Ruth. “Animal Experimentation and Animal Rights.” Orxy Science Bibliographies, v. 9, Orxy Press, 1987. pages 1-9
Heneson, Nancy. “America Agencies Denounce LD50 Test.” New Scientist, v. 100, Noveraber 17, 1983. pages 475.
James, Carolyn. “A Rabbit’s-Eye View.” Science ‘84, v. 5, March 1984. pages 88-89.
Perry, Tina. “Unsafe on Any Plate” Animal Issues, v. 29, Summer 1998. pages 60-64
Pranger, John. “Not a Pretty Picture” Animal Rights Resource. http://arrs.envirolink.org/suppSpeak/not_pretty.html
Pratt, Dallas. Painful Experiments on Animals. New York, NY: Argus Archives, 1976, pages 207.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkley, Ca: University of California Press, 1983. pages 227, 363.
Singer, Peter. “Animal Experimentation. II. Philosophical Perspectives. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York, NY: The Free Press, v. 1, 1978. pages 79-83