Animals Testing

Animals are used for research in a variety of settings, including tests to determine the safety of drugs,
cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not humans should use animals for testing purposes, however,
is a controversial subject. There are both pros and cons to using animals for testing, but the scientific
community, the government and society in general have yet to reach a consensus on this ethical issue.
One of the primary advantages of animal testing is that it allows researchers to develop new medications
and treatments, advancing the field of medicine and enhancing the health of society. For instance, many
drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes, infections and other medical maladies have resulted
from tests performed on animals. Many proponents of animal testing support the practice for this reason,
even if they do not support testing cosmetics or other non-essential substances on animals.
Animal testing also enables scientists and researchers to test the safety of medications and other
substances with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for instance, may pose significant risks to
humans, so testing them on animals first gives researchers a chance to determine drugs' safety before
human trials are performed. While scientists are cognizant of the differences between humans and
animals, the similarities are considered significant enough to produce relevant, useful data that they can
then apply to humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans and saves lives, not only because the
exposure to risky substances is minimized, but because resulting medications and treatments have such
positive impacts on the overall quality of life experienced by humans.
Critiques of Animal Testing
One of the major disadvantages to animal testing is that a significant number of animals are harmed or die
as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately, many of the substances used on animal subjects
never receive approval for human use or consumption. Those who oppose animal testing consider this a
very important point, because humans receive no direct benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals.
Opponents also argue that animals are dissimilar enough from humans to make the results of animal tests
unreliable. A related criticism is that testing induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects do
not react to experimental substances in the same way that they might in more natural circumstances,
making the results of experiments less valid.
Using animals as research subjects is also expensive, because the animals require food, shelter, care and
treatment in addition to the costs of experimental substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can increase
the costs of the practice as well. The actual price paid for the animals is also worth consideration; there
are companies that breed and sell animals specifically for testing purposes.

Animal experimentation
A difficult issue
Animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products.
Many of these experiments cause pain to the animals involved or reduce their quality of life in other
ways.
If it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer then experimenting on animals produces serious moral
problems.
Animal experimenters are very aware of this ethical problem and acknowledge that experiments
should be made as humane as possible.
They also agree that it's wrong to use animals if alternative testing methods would produce equally
valid results.
Two positions on animal experiments
In favour of animal experiments:
Experimenting on animals is acceptable if (and only if):
suffering is minimised in all experiments
human benefits are gained which could not be obtained by using other methods
Against animal experiments:
Experimenting on animals is always unacceptable because:
it causes suffering to animals
the benefits to human beings are not proven
any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways
Harm versus benefit
The case for animal experiments is that they will produce such great benefits for humanity that it is
morally acceptable to harm a few animals.
The equivalent case against is that the level of suffering and the number of animals involved are both
so high that the benefits to humanity don't provide moral justification.
The three Rs
The three Rs are a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the
impact of research on animals.
The three Rs are: Reduction, Refinement, Replacement.
Reduction:
Reducing the number of animals used in experiments by:
Improving experimental techniques
Improving techniques of data analysis
Sharing information with other researchers
Refinement:
Refining the experiment or the way the animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering by:
Using less invasive techniques
Better medical care
Better living conditions
Replacement:
Replacing experiments on animals with alternative techniques such as:
Experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals
Using computer models
Studying human volunteers
Using epidemiological studies

Drug safety
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. If a drug passes the animal test it's then tested on a small human group before large
scale clinical trials.
The pharmacologist William D H Carey demonstrated the importance of animal testing in a letter to
the British Medical Journal where they are trying to find a cure for AIDS .
Animal experiments and animal rights
The issue of animal experiments is straightforward if we accept that animals have rights: if an
experiment violates the rights of an animal, then it is morally wrong, because it is wrong to violate
rights.
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.
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.
It can't be used to defend all forms of experimentation since there are some forms of suffering that
are probably impossible to justify even if the benefits are exceptionally valuable to humanity.

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.
This process can't be used in a mathematical way to help people decide ethical questions in practice,
but it does demonstrate the issues very clearly.
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:
the moral value of a human being
the number of human beings who would have benefited
the value of the benefit that each human being won't get
The harm that the experiment will cause is the result of multiplying together:
the moral value of an experimental animal
the number of animals suffering in the experiment
the negative value of the harm done to each animal
But it isn't that simple because:
it's virtually impossible to assign a moral value to a being
it's virtually impossible to assign a value to the harm done to each individual
the harm that will be done by the experiment is known beforehand, but the benefit is unknown
the harm done by the experiment is caused by an action, while the harm resulting from not doing it
is caused by an omission
Certain versus potential harm
In the theoretical sum above, the harm the experiment will do to animals is weighed against the harm
done to humans by not doing the experiment.
But these are two conceptually different things.
The harm that will be done to the animals is certain to happen if the experiment is carried out
The harm done to human beings by not doing the experiment is unknown because no-one knows
how likely the experiment is to succeed or what benefits it might produce if it did succeed
So the equation is completely useless as a way of deciding whether it is ethically acceptable to
perform an experiment, because until the experiment is carried out, no-one can know the value of the
benefit that it produces.
ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT 2001
The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. It is the only Federal law in the United States
that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. Other laws, policies, and
guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the
Animal Welfare Act as the minimum acceptable standard. The Act is enforced by the USDA, APHIS, Animal
Care agency.
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an animal rights group that has often been the center of controversy over
animal rights issues. Centered in Norfolk, Virginia, PETA has advocated a worldwide agenda of ensuring that animals receive proper
treatment. Their approach to animal rights is often considered extremist and they have been linked to groups like the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which are known for violent attacks on organizations they suspect of
mistreating animals; however, PETA's official stance on methods suitable for protecting animal rights states that the organization
does not condone violence.
The PETA Debate: Confrontational Advocacy
PETA's approach relies on highly confrontational, visible events that highlight the injustices they perceive toward animals. In
addition to governmental lobbying and direct work with companies to ensure better treatment of animals, PETA has been known to
stage vocal and sometimes graphic protests against specific groups. Often their members wear skimpy clothes to events protesting
those who wear fur, and they have been known to throw red paint at those wearing fur to symbolize the blood of the animals. They
distribute literature that many find inflammatory, as it includes graphic depictions of animals being killed and is sometimes directed
at children. PETA organizes boycotts against a wide range of companies suspected of mistreating animals, either directly or
indirectly.
PETA strongly advocates neutering all pets and offers discounted or free neutering at their headquarters in Virginia, where they
neuter thousands of animals each year. They oppose breeders as they argue people should adopt homeless animals in shelters
rather than breeding new pets. However, unlike many other animal rights organizations, PETA does not support the no-kill
movement, which argues that animals should never be euthanized. Rather than try to prolong the lives of animals suffering from
major diseases or maintain huge numbers of animals in inadequate facilities, PETA endorses euthanizing these animals and offers
this service in a number of areas across the country.
Beyond their beliefs on pets, PETA strongly opposes the use of fur as a clothing source, advocating wearing synthetic or plant-
based materials instead. Their attack on the fur industry has included a number of highly publicized attacks against the fashion
industry, including demonstrations in the U.S., Europe and Asia. They also adamantly oppose the use of animal testing, whether for
research or industrial purposes. Their argument against animal testing goes beyond concern for the animals' welfare, but also posits
that animal models are insufficient, as the human biological system does not perfectly mirror that of the animals being studied. As
such, they worry that tests conducted on animals are unnecessary and unenlightening. Indeed, despite their policy of non-violent
protest of animal rights abuses, their president has endorsed the use of illegal direct action to remove animals from testing facilities.
While many critics involved in the PETA debate believe that the organization's approach to animal rights is extreme and often
offensive, the organization also faces complaints from other animal rights groups that their methods are not extreme enough. Their
use of public advocacy, willingness to negotiate with industries and non-violent approach has been characterized as too weak to
effect true changes in animal welfare. Though PETA represents the most highly publicized of animal rights groups, they are far from
the most extreme in terms of their methods and positions.