Introduction
Due to several factors, scientists have been able to make a considerable breakthrough in many spheres of human life. However, the methods employed in reaching this progress do not always involve only humans’ endeavors and participation. Along with technological advancements, laboratories widely use animal research to achieve the results that might be useful for humans. The issue of performing research on animals has always been one of the most controversial topics both in science and society. While scientists defend the benefits of such research over the limitations, animal rights activists argue that it is inadmissible to use defenseless creatures whose consent is never asked and even if it were, it could not be heard. The current paper will discuss the arguments for and against the use of animals for research purposes.
Arguments against the Exploitation of Animals in Laboratories
Out of all the arguments against animal-based research, the most common one is associated with ethical considerations. Since their agreement to participate in tests and experiments is not obtained, it is believed that animals undergo a lot of cruel treatment while in labs (“Cruelty to Animals”). They are kept in cages, so their freedom is limited. With experimental purposes, researchers make animals suffer and develop various diseases in them. For instance, to investigate the ways of treatment of some tumors, scientists may develop the tumor in the animal’s organism (“Cruelty to Animals”).
Therefore, the major argument is that lab animals undergo incredible suffering without any positive outcomes for themselves and only a probability of positive for humans. Other moral concerns involve the deprivation of freedom and unethical end of life of such animals. There even is a separate branch of research dedicated to finding the ways of killing lab animals. In his article, Daniel Cressey mentions that there has been found a solution to this act (130). Cressey calls killing such animals an “unpleasant task” and mentions that humane approaches are necessary to be found (130). The very fact of the existence of a profound discussion concerning the issue of killing lab animals means that the deaths are very numerous. Therefore, animal rights activists are deeply concerned about using animals in research due to unethical and painful experiences that they undergo for the sake of science.
While the social element of animal-based research is focused on the issues of ethics and morale, there are other, purely scientific, arguments concerning this issue. For instance, a common opinion against the use of animals in lab research is associated with the fact that results are not always effective for humans. Despite the opinion that humans have very similar organisms to some animals and that the methods of treatment checked on animals will help people, it is not always true. Pound and Bracken mention that there are considerable limitations in animal-based research and that the results of such research frequently prove not to be beneficial for people (g3387).
Scholars report that the quality of animal-based research is rather low, and it does not bring the expected positive outcomes (Pound and Bracken g3387). The investigation indicates that a lot of animal studies cannot cope with the task of managing the major dangers presented to the internal and external validity of such studies, which makes scientific predictions for people rather questionable. Furthermore, the authors note that there is a lot of bias in animal-based research, which prevents it from being a reliable source of obtaining scientific data (Pound and Bracken g3387). Thus, the benefits of animal research for humans are rather ambiguous, which allows the opponents of such research to insist on their point.
Finally, there is an opinion that using animals in laboratory research leads to large financial losses due to wasted time and materials. Scholars conclude that animal-based research produces beneficial results not as often as expected, and therefore, it cannot be considered a successful approach to dealing with medical problems. One of the reasons why such a situation takes place is that research studies are frequently repeated while it is unnecessary. For instance, as Van Luijk et al. note, there are not enough systematic reviews on animal-based studies (256). However, systematic reviews could help to save on resources and time spent on research (Van Luijk et al. 256, Pound, and Bracken g3387). Thus, the issue of excessive resources wasted on animal research is a crucial scientific-concerned argument against such studies. Until it is resolved, this question will be used against animal experiments.
Arguments in Defense of the Use of Animals in Research
Despite the numerous attempts of animal rights defenders to stop research based on animals, there are a lot of proofs that such activity is indeed capable of producing beneficial outcomes for the mankind and even for the animals themselves. The major argument for animal research is the same as the one against it: the question of ethics. However, while the opponents of experiments on animals defend the rights of the animals, the supporters of using animals in labs defend people’s interests.
In his article, Baruch Brody emphasizes that human interests should be given greater prominence than animal interests when considering the justification of research (54). A study by Pru Hobson-West also discusses the ethical issues of animal-based research (649). The author notes that scientists give multiple reasons for defending their experimental activity on animals as being helpful for people (Hobson-West 652-653).
There are many proofs of animal-based research being beneficial for humans. The most common scientific argument used to support experiments on animals is that they help to make great advancements in the sphere of medicine (“Opinion: In Defense”). Many animal organs and systems are similar to humans’ ones, and this fact makes it possible to perform various tests and examinations on animals without having to perform them on humans. Socially or ethically, such actions may cause many disagreements.
However, in the scientific dimension, the exploitation of animals with research purposes is invaluable. The cure for many serious diseases and conditions has been found due to animal research. Furthermore, transplant operations practiced on animals help scientists to imitate them successfully on people and save their lives without putting patients in danger (“How Animal Research”). For instance, due to animal-based research, scientists were able to find ways of successful treatment of heart disease. Heart transplants have become less dangerous and more frequent due to the results obtained from such studies (“How Animal Research”).
Finally, experiments on animals help not only humans but also the very participants of the experiments. The primary aim of such research may be helping people, but animals benefit greatly as well. Many types of cure for animals have been developed in the process of developing better ways of treatment for people. Scientists are not cruel individuals who merely want to make the defenseless creatures suffer. They are genuinely interested in making our world a better place. Therefore, the results of the research can be employed not only at hospitals but also at veterinary clinics to relieve the suffering of animals (“Opinion: In Defense”). Making experiments on animals may have humans as the primary beneficiaries in mind, but animals’ welfare is also improved a lot as a result of the studies.
Conclusion
The use of animals in laboratory research is one of the most controversial issues in the scientific and social dimensions. Some people consider such experiments extremely helpful, while others stick to the opinion that they are harmful and unproductive. Both sides of the conflict provide proofs of their viewpoints, as well as strengthen them with scholarly data. The most common ethical argument against the exploitation of animals for experimental activity is that the researchers cannot obtain the animals’ consent for participation and therefore deprive the participants of the right to choose.
The scientific-related protest involves the issues of the waste of resources and the ineffectiveness of some animal-based research. The supporters of engaging animals in experiments defend the ethical considerations of humans. In the scientific dimension, they provide proofs of successful operations and treatment methods based on animal research. It is up to everyone to choose whether or not to support animal-based research. However, people who experienced an improvement in their health condition due to the results of such studies are convinced that this is the most beneficial way of finding a cure for many dangerous diseases. The only remaining question is to find ways of eliminating animals’ suffering during the experiments.
Works Cited
Brody, Baruch A. “Defending Animal Research: An International Perspective.” The Ethics of Animal Research: Exploring the Controversy, edited by Jeremy R. Garrett, The MIT Press, 2012, pp. 53-66.
Cressey, Daniel. “Best Way to Kill Lab Animals Sought.” Nature, vol. 500, no. 7461, 2013, pp. 130-131.
“Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories.” PETA, n.d.
Hobson-West, Pru. “Ethical Boundary-Work in the Animal Research Laboratory.” Sociology, vol. 46, no. 4, 2012, pp. 649-663.
“How Animal Research Saved Baby Lincoln’s Life.” Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2016.
“Opinion: In Defense of Using Animals in Research.” Foundation for Biomedical Research. 2015.
Pound, Pandora, and Michael B. Bracken. “Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based to Be a Cornerstone of Biomedical Research?” BMJ, vol. 348, no. may30-1, pp. g3387-g3387.
Van Luijk, Judith, et al. “Towards Evidence-Based Translational Research: The Pros and Cons of Conducting Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies.” ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, pp. 256-257.