Essay on Using Animals in Research

The idea of using animals for research and experimentation is a question that has raised some debates in the society today. In this case, a lot of research have been written in support and opposition of this debate. Others feel that the rights of animals are violated while others see the opportunity in what these animals are offering for the advancement of research and science. The author Singer (2013) in his writing In Defense of Animals opposes the use of animals in medical research while Paul (2001) explains why animals experimentation matters. The article looks at the argument from these writers indicating the strongest arguments from the two articles. It also explains the controversy chosen in appliance and significance in the world.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

According to Singer (2013), Aristotle mentioned in his view that nature is a hierarchy whereby those with less reasoning ability exist for the sake of those with more thinking capacity. That is means that animals leave in the interests of man. His view was not entirely in the interests of animals but rather on the slaves where Singer (2013) believed they served more rational humans. This concludes that human will still retain that view on animals. In the basis of Christians and Jews who base their ideology on Gods biblical teachings, the man was the only one created in Gods image and likeness and given the power to rule the world. Singer (2013) indicates that today, scientist practice speciesism whereby they lock Chimpanzees in cages and sometimes in harsh conditions to be used in research. Even though this is the case, the same scientist cannot lock human who is less intelligent than the chimpanzee. The reason to this is that, no matter how intelligent the chimpanzee is, it is not human and the less intelligent a human is, he is still human (Singer, 2013). The use of animals for research is a prejudice of biases of the interest of members of one species over the other. The questions arising from this argument is not about their reasoning, neither their disability to talk but their suffering. All animals feel pleasure, anger, and pain which is same to humans. This brings an equality between animals and humans.

For the article in favor of animal experimentation by Paul (2001), he argues that, the way that animals can endure, although morally noteworthy because it gives animals the status of moral patients, is not without anyone else's input an adequate ground on which to accord them measure up to moral status with humans." According to his argument, humans are not on equal moral status with animals; no moral obligation differs humans from using animals for research. Since anything that is not morally wrong is morally permissible, then it is morally permissible to use animals for experimentation. Although Paul (2001) might be in support of animal research, he insists that humanity is not free to abuse or harm animals the way they want or that humans lack the moral anxieties over the animals. Paul (2001) argues that animals play a significant role in the biomedical and behavior research center to help understand human health and disease. These animals are used not only to benefit research in humans but also the animals too. The author insists that it is better for one animal to suffer for the sake of saving lives of many people rather than seeing humans die just because animals are not used in research. Although this is the case, the writer insists that pain relieving drugs should be used to let these animals not suffer much. He states that we would not be obliged to affirm their moral fairness, so the ability to suffer does not build up moral correspondence. Likewise, Paul (2001) draws out the pronouncement that if we should dispense pain or starve, we would then need to pick the lesser evil. Apparently, it would even now be genuine that plants suffer not as much as animals, and in this way, it would, in any case, be ideal to eat plants than to eat animals. This demonstrates the privileges of humans to survive is more imperative than that of different animals.

From the articles, Paul (2001) gives a solid argument for the necessity to use animals for research even though they do experience pain. The use of animals for research does not exploit them like for instant wearing animal fur, but rather it is significant in research for obtaining the polio vaccine. The ideology of speciesism draws a line although it will not be drawn in regards to similarities for instance pain between humans and animals (Singer, 2013). What if people could argue in respect that plants should not be used in research? The possibility to live without plants and animals cannot be justified because we all depend on each other to survive. Animals depend on plants and humans on animals. The ideology of speciesism argued by Gargaro should not only base its argument on animal research but rather be expounded to other situations because of they still safer in the hands of humans for other purposes. Humans have revered nature and shown respect while using them for research because this research has not only benefited man but also animals. Through this research, animals can now be treated with humanness and great care. According to Brigham (1985), using these animals for research does not necessarily mean that they are mistreated or exploited. For instance, it is better to let many dogs die of rabies just because we are not allowed to have research on a few of them for the purpose of saving the others. Humanity cannot be sabotaged just for the sake of ignoring the use of animals for research of medical discovery of cures for cancer, AIDS among other diseases. The benefits of using the animal for research has been saved humanity because these experiments have brought to the realization of insulin, vaccines, and antibiotics (Blakemore, 2008).

People have to understand the significance of scientific research to humanity because it cannot be compared to hunting which affects the balance of nature. The issue idea of using animals for research is contentious use but what it needs to answer it whether it works and if it is ethical. Many research experiments where animals have been used have worked, and Blakemore (2008) argues that other people believe that there are alternative for animal research are a fallacy. These animals are used for instance mice and rats because biologically humans are similar species and have the same genes. Their response to treatment and disease is same to a human. Medical research in an arduous process. When therapy is being administered to patients, it is easier for the patients to forget the importance of animals in the development of the medicines they are used on them. For instance, patients are not aware of the powerful drugs developed through animal research on which include Herceptin and Avastin for treating cancer. In Nobel prices as indicated in Blakemore (2008), 70% of its awards have been awarded to animal research contribution in medical physiology. If these animals could not have been used in this research, then we would be still in the dark ages. Research in Seattle according to Blakemore (2008) indicates that they were able to implant an electronic brain to monkey enabling it to move paralyzed limbs. This potentially indicates that the discovery will allow disabled people to regain their movements. Ethically, other argue that saving people from suffering should not be an excuse for killing animals in the laboratories. We should recognize the amount of time and research that scientist put to save lives. It is not scientist and researchers wish to use this animal for research; it is the only available option at the moment. We all pray for that day that animal research will not be required or needed but until this happens, it is vital to continue with animal research.

In conclusion, the debate on using animals in research as argued by Paul and Singer is justified, but this being the case, humanity has to be protected through scientific research. The use of animals for research does not exploit them, but rather it is significant in both humans and animals. These research have been instrumental to humanity most especially in psychology and medical field. It is not the wish to scientist and researchers to use animals for research, but since there is no option this, it is mandatory to use then until another options surface.

References

Blakemore, C. (2008, October 28). Should we experiment on animals? Yes. Retrieved March 13,

2017, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3353960/Should-we-experiment-on-animals-Yes.htmlBrigham, L., K. (1985). The Use of Animals in Research. Vanderbilt University School of

Medicine. N. Engl. J. Med, 312:794.

Gargaro, Carolyn C. "Using Animals for Medical Research - A Philosophical Viewpoint." Using

Animals for Medical Research - A Philosophical Viewpoint. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

In Defense of Animals (Group). (1900). In Defense of Animals: [newsletter]. Mill Valley, CA: In

Defense of Animals.

Paul, E. F. (2001). Why animal experimentation matters: The use of animals in medical research.

New Brunswick [u.a.: Transaction Publ.

Singer, P. (2013). In Defense of Animals. Hoboken: Wiley.