Should Animals be used in Laboratory Research?
Every year millions of animals are used as human food, in human sports for fun, to make clothing and to make test cosmetics, drugs, new-found treatments, and chemicals on humans. Among all these, the most contentious issue in the twenty-first century is the usage of animals in laboratories. Science is the most powerful field from which all new knowledge comes, and being the prime source of new technologies, more judgment, and science, the United States has a big responsibility to accomplish one or more of what the American Humane Society calls the “Three Rs”- reduce, replace, and refines: “They replace the use of animals in a scientific procedure; they reduce the number of animals used in a procedure: and/or they refine a procedure so the animals experience less pain, suffering or discomfort” (HSUS 2007). In modern times, the most industrialized county, the United States, and also others countries, like United Kingdom, are having a hard time reaching a conclusion concerning the problem of animal usage in laboratories; the reason is that this issue has many curses and blessings. All the species of animals have their own importance in the ecosystem. Many species of animals can become extinct because of animal research. As a result, an unholy mess in ecology would emerge, which would be a curse not any less dangerous that global warming, pollution, and overpopulation. Human lives are worthier than animal lives because humans experience things like love, sympathy, hate, caring, justice, and pain based on relationships among them. Animals like rats, hamsters, baboons, monkeys, chimpanzees, and dogs are widely used in the laboratory because they are mammals. If animal testing is stopped, then all the medical research will be curtailed. As a result, scientists may come to faulty conclusions, which would take the lives of many humans who use the results of this research. Thus, this is the most challenging issue faced by mankind for the survival of mankind for the survivals of mankind and animals and therefore needs to be properly solved. Currently, difficulties involved in solving this problem are pointing society in the direction of regulations rather than eliminating or encouraging the use of animals in laboratories.
The ultimate aim of the NC3Rs is to substitute a significant proportion of animal research by investigating the development of alternative techniques, such as human studies. “RDS supports this aim, but believes that it is unrealistic to expect this to be possible in every area of scientific research in the immediate future. After all, if the technology to develop these alternatives is not available or does not yet exist, progress is likely to be slow. The main obstacle is still the difficulty of accurately mimicking the complex physiological systems of whole living organisms—a challenge that will be hard to meet.”(ABPI). There has been some progress recently imitating single organs such as the liver, but these need further refinement to make them suitable models for an entire organ and, even if validated, they cannot represent a whole-body system. New and promising techniques such as microdosing also have the potential to reduce the number of animals used in research, but again cannot replace them entirely. Anti-vivisectionist groups do not accept this reality and are campaigning vigorously for the adoption of other methods without reference to validation or acceptance of their limitations, or the consequences for human health. Animal-rights groups also disagree with the 3Rs, since these principles still allow for the use of animals in research; they are only interested in replacement. Such an approach would ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee report, and would not deal with public concerns about animal welfare. Notwithstanding this, the development of alternatives—which invariably come from the scientific community, rather than...
ABPI (2007) Facts & Statistics from the Pharmaceutical Industry
“Animal Experiments.” BBC. 17 Aug. 2004. 20 March 2008 .
“Animal Testing.” The Human Society of the United States. 2007. 23 March 2008. .
“Animal Testing an HSUS Report: the Welfare of Animals in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries.” The Human Society of the United States. 2007. 23 March 2008. l.
DTI (2005) Science Funding SET Statistics. London, UK: Department of Trade and Industry. www.dti.gov.uk
Duetsch, Larry L
“Experiments and Testing on Rats”. The Humane society of the United States. 2007. 23 March 2008. .
Orlans, Barbara F. In the Name of Science. New York: Oxford UP (US), 1993. 5 April 2008. .
Pocha, Jehangir S., and Heidi Brown. “Comparitive Advantage”. Comparitive Advantage. 2nd ser. 178 (2006): 76-78. Academic search Elite. EBSCO. Bucks County Community College, Newtown, PA. 2 April 2008. .
Taatchell, Peter. “Why Animal Research is Bad Science”. Why Animal Research is Bad Science. 133 (2004). Business Source Elite. EBSCO. Bucks County Community College, Newtown, PA. 14 March 2008. .
Taylor, Robert. “Testing Drugs on Animals: a Test Case for Socially Responsible Investment”. Business Ethics: a European Review. 14 (2005): 164-175. EBSCO. Bucks County Community College Library, Newtown, PA. April 2005. 5 April 2008. .
“Uniting People and Information to Help Save Lives”. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. 2003. 24 March 2008. .
Willetts, Thomas. “Theories and Issues in Moral Philosophy”. Animal Rights. 2007. Animal Rights. 22 March 2008. .
Please join StudyMode to read the full document