Introduction
In discussions regarding animal research, the issue of identifying the moral standing of people and animals frequently comes up. It has always been controversial to utilize animals in scientific studies. On the one hand, using animals in this way for human gain alone is viewed as morally unacceptable. On the other side, eliminating all scientific use of animals would make it more challenging to study health and illness (Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2015). There are stringent regulations in place to guarantee that these experiments are conducted humanely, even though they occasionally do lessen the quality of life for these animals.
Ethical Foundations According to the Nuffield Report
The Nuffield Report highlights five essential characteristics that should form the research base. It is possible to weigh them based on what can and cannot happen to a living creature, and although different views exist, the human benefit should not be considered as part of the mix (LaFollette & Shanks, 2020). However, these guidelines have led to even greater ethical discussion. The main issue is whether testing on animals for human benefit should be considered superior, making this process morally acceptable (Stretch & Dirnagl, 2019). Since the development of life-saving medical technologies, medications, and therapies will be severely undermined by the eliminated possibility of using animals for testing, this practice has many supporters.
Arguments Against Animal Testing: Sentience and Rights
The use of animals in scientific study is immoral and cruel, which is one of the primary arguments against it. The idea that animals are sentient beings with rights means that any action that infringes on their rights and freedom for the benefit of humanity is immoral. According to opponents of the use of animals in research, animals have no choice but to engage in different studies to benefit humans (National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2018). Therefore, using living creatures, even for the best purposes of humans, should not be promoted or tolerated.
Scientific and Ethical Concerns Over Animal Models
The use of animals that can feel pain should be prohibited because their suffering is not worth the scientific results, as the latter may be false or biased. The reason is that animals differ significantly from humans, and these models are ineffective as test subjects (CrashCourse, 2017). The fact that the human body system and that of animals differ significantly is sometimes used as justification for banning the use of animals in research (BrainStuff, 2016). Animals thus provide subpar models that produce false outcomes that harm human health.
Conclusion
Animal research is controversial, with proponents and detractors disagreeing on whether it should be promoted or outlawed. To support the first view, one needs to say that this practice is immoral. Moreover, less expensive and more effective alternatives exist. In addition, animals are not perfect models for medical testing, which is why there are not many advantages for people. Consequently, benefits for society should not be considered part of the mix. Severe limits should be placed if an animal experiences pain or has higher cognitive capacities.
References
BrainStuff. (2016). Should animals have human rights? [Video]. YouTube. Web.
CrashCourse. (2017). Non-human animals: Crash course philosophy #42 [Video]. YouTube. Web.
Foundation for Biomedical Research. (2015). Why animals are needed in research [Video]. YouTube. Web.
LaFollette, H., & Shanks, N. (2020). Brute science: Dilemmas of animal experimentation. Routledge.
National Anti-Vivisection Society. (2018). 3 reasons to end animal experimentation now [Video]. YouTube. Web.
Stretch, D., & Dirnagl, U. (2019). 3Rs missing: Animal research without scientific value is unethical. BMJ Open Science, 3(1). Web.