Scientists should not use animal testing as a source for experimentation because its unethical and i

Both infants and the mentally handicapped frequently lack complex cognitive capacities, full autonomy, or even both of these traits. The basic arithmetic If performing an experiment would cause more harm than not performing it, then it is ethically wrong to perform that experiment.

However, the return on that investment has been dismal. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methods promises a brighter future for both animal and human health.

Most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses.

About Abigail Animal testing is unethical, inhumane and completely unnecessary. 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.

If animals do not have the same rights as humans, it becomes permissible to use them for research purposes. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human-patient simulators, and computational models have the potential to be more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane alternatives to experiments on animals.

Proponents of the middle ground position usually advocate a few basic principals that they believe should always be followed in animal research. They spend hours together every day, grooming each other, foraging, playing, and making nests to sleep in each night.

Why We Should Test on Humans Not Animals

This philosophical essay briefly presents his views. Therefore, they should have the same moral status and deserve equal treatment. While experiments on animals have been conducted during the course of some discoveries, this does not mean that animals were vital to the discovery or are predictive of human health outcomes or that the same discoveries would not have been made without using animals.

Additionally, well designed studies and appropriate statistical analysis of data can minimize the number of animals required for statistically significant results.

Laboratories often do not allow social interactions, provide family groups or companions, or offer grooming possibilities, nests, or surfaces softer than metal.

Experimenting on animals

We can beat cancer by taking these human-derived, human-relevant data into account and implementing creative methods to encourage healthier lifestyle choices. Sophisticated human cell- and tissue-based research methods allow researchers to test the safety and effectiveness of new drugs, vaccines, and chemical compounds.

Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron.

If we truly want to improve our lives and the lives of others, we need to cut out the use of animals altogether. Promising drugs and possible vaccines are tested first in mice and monkeys before being used in clinical trials with human volunteers.

In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized.

No procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may be, are prohibited by federal law.

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.Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal experimentation wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract.

because they are weaker, because. Why We Should Test on Humans Not Animals. tweet November 6, ; About Abigail; Animal testing is unethical, inhumane and completely unnecessary. With so many alternatives available to us, how can we justify the poisoning, burning, shocking and killing of more than million animals each year causing them unimaginable pain, fear and.

Contrary to sensationalistic reports of animal rights activists, scientists are not a society of crazed, cruel, curiosity seekers. But there are instances when the use of alternatives, such as painkillers, would interfere with research that promises to vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives.

Because humans are more highly. Scientists use animals in biological and medical research more as a matter of tradition, not because animal research has proved particularly successful or better than other modes of experimentation.

In fact. » Why do scientists use animals in research? home / Animals are necessary to medical research when it is impractical or unethical to use humans. women, and children. Death rates are declining because of advances in diagnosis, treatment and prevention made through animal research.

Dec 08,  · Animal experimentation any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways given that problems exist because scientists must extrapolate from.

Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint Download
Scientists should not use animal testing as a source for experimentation because its unethical and i
Rated 4/5 based on 82 review