We have 4 possible new drugs to cure HIV. Whatever benefits animal experimentation is thought to hold in store for us, those very same benefits could be obtained through experimenting on humans instead of animals.
The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of ethical self-examination. 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.
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.
Drug D was taken by all the animals up to huge doses with no ill effect. Proposed EU directive Proposed EU directive In November the European Union put forward proposals to revise the directive for the protection of animals used in scientific experiments in line with the three R principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in experiments.
But these are two conceptually different things. Which of those drugs should we give to some healthy young human volunteers as the first dose to humans all other things being equal?
And so if we want to continue with the arithmetic that we started in the section above, we need to put an additional, and different, factor on each side of the equation to deal with the different moral values of acts and omissions.
It would also be obvious to a normal 12 year old child Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Avon, Sadly, there are a number of examples where researchers have been prepared to experiment on human beings in ways that should not have been permitted on animals.
What is relevant is the ethical approach of the experimenter to each experiment. 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. An alternative, acceptable answer would be, none of those drugs because even drug D could cause damage to humans.
Drug B killed all the dogs and rats. 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.
So the acts and omissions argument could lead us to say that it is morally worse for the experimenter to harm the animals by experimenting on them than it is to potentially harm some human beings by not doing an experiment that might find a cure for their disease.The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective.
Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we.
A Toy 1/11/12 Animal Testing Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. It is estimated that 50 to million animals worldwide are used yearly.
But because only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning animal use for testing and research, the precise number is unknown. If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue? fundamental differences in genetics, physiology and biochemistry can result in wildly different reactions to both the illness.
Frequently Asked Questions About Animal Testing Isn’t testing on animals necessary to protect people from dangerous chemicals? If animal tests are ineffective and unnecessary, why do scientists still do them?
Animal Data Is Not Reliable for Human Health Research (Op-Ed) By found that 92 percent of drugs entering clinical trials following animal testing fail. Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.Download