Animal Research Pros And Cons

The debate surrounding the use of invasive animal research has been ongoing throughout history. Proponents of the practice are quick to point out the multitude of benefits that have emerged from the practice such as the cures and vaccines to major diseases such as polio, and their capacity to continue to do so in the future. Opponents often claim that the moral status of these animals deem it morally impermissible to do any time of research that can harm them, no matter what the benefits for humans may be. This is especially true in the argument against invasive chimpanzee research. Chimps share similar genetics with humans and have been shown to exhibit an array of emotional responses similar to those of humans, but this does not necessarily …show more content…
Additionally, strides have been made in increasing the care for these subjects and the perceived moral permissibility of the practice. The National Institute of Health (NIH) published new criteria for animal research that made sure invasive research would only be used when absolutely necessary and in the event it has to be used the test subjects would be housed and treated with care. Therefore, due to the potential for medical necessity and the absence of full and legal rights to humans, the NIH should not cease funding on invasive chimpanzee research. However, there should be strict adherence to the new criteria put forth by the NIH. There are a number of arguments in favor of funding for invasive chimpanzee research and for animal research as a whole. One of the more compelling moral arguments is the argument against the notion that animals hold moral status made by Carl Cohen. Cohen defines moral status as the ability to make a claim or potential claim that one …show more content…
However, it seems that most people lie in the middle of the sides on this issue. It is easy to point to crowded living conditions and abuses within the research and speak out against those ethical failures. What is undeniable, and is pointed out by Medical Research Chief Nic Fleming, is that in situations where these animals, namely chimpanzees are necessary in order to help the human kind find vaccines and cures for deadly diseases, then we should be able to do so and would be in favor of it. In this case, we cannot cut funding to invasive chimpanzee research to account for these types of research that do still exist. As long as the guidelines set forth by the NIH are met, there is no reason we cannot conduct this research in an ethical manner, and potentially save the human race if the time calls for it. In conclusion, animals do not have full and equal rights to humans, and therefore can be the subjects of testing to benefit the human race, and that should be kept in mind when deciding the future funding of invasive chimpanzee