Animal testing is the only way

But should it be? Laboratory animal testing in cosmetics — as example — is considered cruel. Is laboratory animal testing of pet food any less cruel? What are feeding trials?

Animal testing is the only way

Animal experiments and drug safety Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that.

Instead, they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings. We have 4 possible new drugs to cure HIV.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

Drug A killed all the rats, mice and dogs. Drug B killed all the dogs and rats. Drug C killed all the mice and rats. Drug D was taken by all the animals up to huge doses with no ill effect. Which of those drugs should we give to some healthy young human volunteers as the first dose to humans all other things being equal?

To the undecided and non-prejudiced the answer is, of course, obvious. It would also be obvious to a normal 12 year old child An alternative, acceptable answer would be, none of those drugs because even drug D could cause damage to humans. That is true, which is why Drug D would be given as a single, very small dose to human volunteers under tightly controlled and regulated conditions.

Are animal experiments useful?

Animal testing is the only way

Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their results are valid and can be applied to human beings. Not all scientists are convinced that these tests are valid and useful.

Moreover, a great deal of animal experimentation has been misleading and resulted in either withholding of drugs, sometimes for years, that were subsequently found to be highly beneficial to humans, or to the release and use of drugs that, though harmless to animals, have actually contributed to human suffering and death.

But the argument is about whether the experiments are morally right or wrong. The general moral character of the experimenter is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ethical approach of the experimenter to each experiment. John P Gluck has suggested that this is often lacking: The lack of ethical self-examination is common and generally involves the denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects.

Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of ethical self-examination. The possible benefits to humanity of performing the experiment are completely irrelevant to the morality of the case, because rights should never be violated except in obvious cases like self-defence.

And as one philosopher has written, if this means that there are some things that humanity will never be able to learn, so be it. This bleak result of deciding the morality of experimenting on animals on the basis of rights is probably why people always justify animal experiments on consequentialist grounds; by showing that the benefits to humanity justify the suffering of the animals involved.

Animal testing is the only way

Justifying animal experiments Those in favour of animal experiments say that the good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals. This is a consequentialist argument, because it looks at the consequences of the actions under consideration. Ethical arithmetic Animal experiments and ethical arithmetic The consequentialist justification of animal experimentation can be demonstrated by comparing the moral consequences of doing or not doing an experiment.

The basic arithmetic If performing an experiment would cause more harm than not performing it, then it is ethically wrong to perform that experiment. The harm that will result from not doing the experiment is the result of multiplying three things together: But these are two conceptually different things.According to Slate, “Although it is central to the legitimacy of animal testing, only a dozen or so scholars over the past 30 years have explored .

Here are just a few examples of the range of state-of-the-art alternatives to animal testing available and their demonstrated benefits. Dec 08,  · any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their results are valid and can be applied to.

There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing.

Unreliable animal testing 90% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests – whether on safety grounds or because they do not work Cancer drugs have the lowest success rate (only 5% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by psychiatry drugs (6% success rate), heart drugs (7% success rate) and. Here are just a few examples of the range of state-of-the-art alternatives to animal testing available and their demonstrated benefits. The number of animals used in research has increased with the advancement of research and development in medical technology. Every year, millions of .

Not only are these non-animal tests more humane, they also have the potential to be cheaper, faster, and more relevant to humans. Animal Testing Is the only Way This Research Paper Animal Testing Is the only Way and other 64,+ term papers, college essay examples and free essays are available now on benjaminpohle.com Autor: review • February 24, • Research Paper • 1, Words (5 Pages) • Views4/4(1).

These new methods for studying human health and medicine not only have the potential to provide better data than that attained through animal testing, they are also a more humane way to practice.

Animal testing - Wikipedia