The Ethics behind Animal Testing for Human Benefit



The Ethics behind Animal Testing for Human Benefit

Introduction

As society progresses, many groups and organizations debate the ethics behind animal testing as legal practice. Some believe there are multiple benefits in animal testing while others believe that the practice is ethically and morally wrong. Many scientists, however, believe that despite its polarization as an issue there are alternative options available for animal testing and experimantation.

The fact can be very much acknowledged that throughout human history, animal experimentation has played an imperative role towards new discoveries and human advantages. Many, however, tend to forget the suffering and damage accrued through experimentation. Animal experimentation should be excluded as standard practice in commercial and pharmaceutical development due to its inhumane approach, unethical justifications, and host of alternatives.

Discussion

Animal experimentation tends to be governed by some of the most stringent regulations and is designed to protect animals from excessive and unjustifiable suffering. It is also important, though, that we consider the ethical justification on the issue. Since any suffering can be attributed to infringement of rights, the practice can be ethically justified. (Mepham, 2008, p. 189).

Theoritical Models for Animal Experimaentation

In theory, the justification for advanced research appeals to the utilitarian theory, where benefit exceeds cost (Mepham, 2008, p. 191). The strongest ethical case for animal experimentation is when animals act as an ideal Causal Analogue Model (CAM). CAMs are thought to be the primary driver of biomedical advance. The main function of CAMs under which experiments are done on animals is to see the casual mechanism which produces and directs the course of a condition or disease in that animal. The results that are obtained are then in analogy extended to humans. This casual mechanism results in more understanding of the condition or disease that the scientists can use in prevention or treatment of the disease (LaFollette and Shanks, 1995, p.142). If CAM are limited in value then there is more to be said about Hypothetical Analogue Models (HAM). The aims of which are in the formulation of hypothesis that may be of value to biomedical research. This model suggests that in certain conditions and casual respects human phenomena may not be similar to animal test subjects which may lead to no conclusive result that can be applied to human beings. Rather these experiments lead to hypothesis formation that can be generalized on humans (LaFollette and Shanks, 1995, p.141). There are many concerns about the use of cats, dogs, horses and primates. On the use of primates, (specific) legislation states,

“In a choice between experiments, those with the lowest degrees of neurophysiological sensitively shall be selected”. Legal requirements for drugs to be tested on two types of species the use of non-rodents is a standard practice more than 70% of primates are used for toxicity testing (Mepham, 2008, p. 202).

Alternatives to Animal Testing

What “alternatives do we have for animal testing?" One way in which scientists confront the bioethical issue of animal experimentation is in the numbers of animals ...