Animals often become objects of scientific research aimed to test new cosmetics, medicines, methods of treatment, and food. It leads to the endless hardship of hundreds of thousands of animals, which until recently were considered to be a sole means to check drugs and products. Nowadays, new advanced technologies, especially AI and cell technology, allow scientists to forgo that outdated practice. However, sentient beings are still involved in experiments, and many people tend to find different justifications for it. This fact raises the ethical aspect of animal testing that should be addressed worldwide. The main reason usually expressed by animal testing advocates is that there are no other options, whereas its critiques argue that it is a grave violation of animal rights and ethical norms. Despite the complex and timely process of further cultural transformation, humanity has to abolish the use of animals in science because it is an unethical, cruel, and unreliable scientific tool.
The reality is that majority recognize the suffering of rabbits or rats used in research laboratories and even sympathize with them. However, people still tolerate cruel experiments for a wide range of reasons, including psycho-sociological aspects reflected in carnism and other similar theories. Carnism is the opposite ideology of veganism that explains why people choose to eat meat and use animals as their property, believing that it is the right thing to do (Gibert and Desaulniers 293). Its main reasons stem from deeply rooted culture, traditions, and the psychological nature of moral inconsistency, which occurs, for instance, when people defend their dogs and tolerate the suffering of rats in laboratories. Human beings tend to rely on primary defenses of carnism, which are psychological mechanisms. They try to view animals as “non-living” objects (objectification) that are something abstract (deindividualization).
Moreover, dichotomization plays the most crucial role here as it allows people to divide animals into different groups, such as farmed ones and pets. This approach helps to avoid tension between loving animals and letting them suffer from pain by denying that some species have moral rights. Loughnan et al. reveal that when omnivores categorize a creature as food, they start to perceive its intelligence and capacity to suffer as marginal, which in turn decreases moral concern (17). In other words, people tend to comfort themselves and ignore the natural ability to sympathize with animals to avoid cognitive dissonance.
The animal rights movement should be seen as a part of a larger human rights movement. For instance, Regan stresses that because the animals are systematically treated as less useful to humanity and with a lack of respect, their rights are also systematically violated (233). According to the rights view, improvement of their detention conditions or minimizing of caused pain is not enough. The full replacement is needed because animals also possess the inherent value and deserve to live freely without human interference. The main problem is that people see them as renewable resources or as objects lacking independent value.
One of the most popular arguments is that animals used for testing are bred for it; thus, it is their mission. Scientists do not kill wild animals and avoid adverse impacts on the environment. It may be true from a global perspective; however, it shows that humanity ignores the fact that all animals deserve to have rights. Gibert and Desaulniers stress that society has false beliefs concerning the intelligence gap between different species (295). The fact is that all animals have enough mental capacity to understand the pain and feel different emotions, which makes them even (Loughnan et al. 16). For instance, animal rights activists attribute animals to a wide emotional life, whereas meat-eaters deny their minds’ complexity and ignore their moral rights.
Another common argument that supports animal experimentation is the total unacceptance of human being testing. Of course, the testing phase of new drugs or products should not be neglected to avoid possible casualties, whereas even testing performed on volunteers is, to some extent, perceived as an unethical activity. According to Armstrong and Botzler, widely accepted moral principles that are central to the human conception of morality shed light on the currently increased delinquency of using animals as test subjects (311). These principles tell not to harm, kill, or cause to suffer conscious, sentient animals for no good reason. Even defenders of such testing feel the obligation to avoid causing unjustified pain to all creatures. The “justified reason” becomes the main driver for perceiving animal experimentation as at least morally acceptable if not entirely ethical.
The future of humanity has been prioritized over rats and mice in science because there allegedly was no other choice. A chain of laws and acts was adopted to enhance control over the unethical use of animals and minimize the adverse consequences of such experimentation (Doke and Dhawale 224). Nevertheless, the usage of rats, mice, hamsters, dogs, and primates for research is still not abolished in the world. Recent findings on animal experimentation efficiency, together with intense technological advancement, make all “justified reasons” cease to exist. According to Archibald, animal testing was not always successfully applied as it failed to find appropriate treatments for such diseases as cancer, asthma, and stroke (2). Moreover, it provides limited predictability of medicines’ safety for human patients, which makes it an unreliable and outdated tool.
To assess the moral side of animal experimentation, not only costs to animals but also human costs should be considered, as many people die from drugs that undergo insufficient testing. For instance, 95% of new medicines that were found to be effective and safe in animals fail during human trials (Archibald 4). Further human costs and the realization that animal testing is a poor model for humans may defeat and stop this experimentation method’s usage. Its high human and animal costs, together with low utility, totally undermine the “sacrifice for a good reason” justification.
Furthermore, recent incredible scientific advances made it possible to test human biology to the extent that precludes the usage of living creatures. According to Doke and Dhawale, such alternatives to animal testing, like in vitro cell testing and computational techniques, are more efficient and offer both ethical and scientific advantages (225). It is a time when opponents of cruel experiments involving animals cannot be accused of having the antiscience position and prioritizing animals over people.
To conclude, animals have enough cognitive level to feel emotions and suffer from maltreatment. Animal testing requires systematic causing of harm to sentient beings to test drugs and products that will be later used by people. Taking into consideration that animals have inherent value, this unethical procedure violates their rights. People tend to justify their sacrifices by prioritizing human life, diminishing the intelligence capabilities of animals, and applying sentiment of “justified reason.” Recent findings proved that the abolishing of animal testing becomes a win-win situation for all parties as it would enhance medical research to the benefit of both patients and animals.
Works Cited
Archibald, Kathy. “Animal Research Is an Ethical Issue for Humans as Well as for Animals.” Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 8, no. 1, 2018, pp. 1–11.
Armstrong, Susan J., and Richard G. Botzler. The Animal Ethics Reader. 3rd ed., Routledge, 2016.
Doke, Sonali K., and Shashikant C. Dhawale. “Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review.” Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal vol. 23, no. 3, 2015, pp. 223-229.
Gibert, Martin, and Elise Desaulniers. “Carnism.” Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics, edited by Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan, Springer, 2014, pp. 292-298.
Loughnan, Steve, Boyka Bratanova, and Elisa Puvia. “The Meat Paradox: How are We Able to Love Animals and Love Eating Animals?” The Inquisitive Mind Italia, vol. 1, 2012, pp.15-18.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, 2004.