Essay on Ethics Perspectives

The use of animals in research has been a heated controversy for over ten years. These debates arise from the differing views and feelings people have for animals. Some see animals as champions, while others view animals as a means to advance medical techniques (Gluck et al., 2002). Regardless of how people view animals, the use of animals in scientific studies is wrong. Research facilities are exploiting animals all across the globe in the name of improving human health. The pain, the suffering, and the death of animals are not worth the possible human benefits; therefore, scientists should not include animals in biomedical research.

It is important to note that animals’ rights are always violated when animals are used in scientific studies. Animals, just like humans, have a basic moral right that ought to be respected; animals have a right to receive respectful treatment (Gluck et al., 2002). The inherent value of using animals in research violates these rights and reduces animals to mere experiment tools. Also, animals and humans are similar in many different ways; for instance, animals feel, think, behave, and experience pain more importantly. Therefore, and because of these aspects, animals should be offered the same choices humans are accorded. This is often not the case; animals are never given a choice; they are subjected to tests that are often painful or test that trigger permanent damage.

Nevertheless, the use of animals in scientific tests has provided wonderful results over recent years. It has helped save human lives by providing medicine and treatment techniques for conditions that were otherwise hard to manage, so this concept cannot be entirely abandoned. There ought to be some degree of responsibility. Researchers should consider and balance animal suffering and benefits (Gluck et al., 2002). They must consider the risk that animals experience pain and other suffering and evaluate them in relation to the research’s value, people, or the environment. Researchers should also be keen to understand whether the experiment will improve people, animals, or the environment (Gluck et al., 2002). Also, not all animals should be included. Endangered species such as the sea otter or the Panthera Tigris should not be included in biomedical researches.

Moreover, and since the use of animals in scientific studies is provocative scientists may use other alternatives. Animal experiments could be replaced by other types of experiments that yield the same information without including animals. Some of these alternatives include tissue culture and computer models (Gluck et al., 2002). Novel experiment procedures could also be used to reduce the number of animals used in scientific studies, especially in testing new compounds for toxicity. For instance, today, chemical compounds are screened in cell culture; if they are contaminated, they are not given to animals. However, it is important to note that cell culture cannot entirely replace animals.

Using animals in scientific studies is wrong as it violates animals’ rights. Also, it should be eliminated because it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals. However, if the need to use animals in biomedical studies overcomes animals’ morally justifiable rights, there should be some degree of responsibility. Scientists should weigh and balance animal suffering with benefits. However, other experiments could replace animals’ use in biomedical studies: computer models, tissue culture, and other experiments could help save many animals from suffering and pain.

Reference

Gluck, J., DiPasquale, T., & Orlans, B. (2002). Applied ethics in animal research: philosophy, regulation, and laboratory applications (pp. 131-147). Purdue University Press.