I believe that animal experimentation is a valid medical research technique and am support it. I believe this for a multitude of reasons, the biggest being as follows: animal experimentation is necessary for the betterment of medical technologies and drug development, alternatives are not as cost efficient and do not produce results that are as accurate as those produces by animal experimentation, and animals do not have equal rights to humans. I personally find these reasons to be irrefutable cause for the continuation of the use of animals throughout science. These reasons, backed by evidence and facts, cause me to believe that animal experimentation, although controversial, is both an ethically and scientifically valid method. I believe
…show more content…
Many people believe it to be inhumane, whereas others believe it is the most practical way of learning more in the realms of science, medicine, and cosmetics, and support it. Although there are currently certain alternatives to animal experimentation, they are not able to triumph against the accuracy of conventional experimentation. Two forms of animal experimentation alternatives are the chemosynthetic liver and “organs-on-a-chip.” (Ericson) Of the two, the chemosynthetic liver is further along in the process of becoming FDA approved, with having been proven viable in 50 similar sample studies. (Ericson) However, the following is still widely thought to be true within the scientific …show more content…
This, however, is not thought to be the case in the book Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues. In this book, it is stated, “Yet it would be inconsistent to assert that humans are not superior to animals while suggesting that humans should refuse to exploit other species, even though other species exploit each other.” (Levine, p. 245-246) Despite this information, some people still refute the possibility of human superiority. One such example is the case of Carl Linnaeus. In the 1700s, Linnaeus claimed humans fall into the category of primate—the same category as moneys and apes. (Perdew, p. 11) Although this points out a characteristically similar feature between humans and other primates, it brings no evidence against the thought that even though animals may have some form of rights, they are still inferior to humans. Once one is able to understand this, it becomes much easier to support the process of animal experimentation. If animals truly are inferior to humans, which I personally fully believe to be true, then why would we not better ourselves at their expense? Even though I find it completely ethical to perform experiments upon animals, I do also believe that there needs to be regulation on these forms of
Many people believe it to be inhumane, whereas others believe it is the most practical way of learning more in the realms of science, medicine, and cosmetics, and support it. Although there are currently certain alternatives to animal experimentation, they are not able to triumph against the accuracy of conventional experimentation. Two forms of animal experimentation alternatives are the chemosynthetic liver and “organs-on-a-chip.” (Ericson) Of the two, the chemosynthetic liver is further along in the process of becoming FDA approved, with having been proven viable in 50 similar sample studies. (Ericson) However, the following is still widely thought to be true within the scientific …show more content…
This, however, is not thought to be the case in the book Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues. In this book, it is stated, “Yet it would be inconsistent to assert that humans are not superior to animals while suggesting that humans should refuse to exploit other species, even though other species exploit each other.” (Levine, p. 245-246) Despite this information, some people still refute the possibility of human superiority. One such example is the case of Carl Linnaeus. In the 1700s, Linnaeus claimed humans fall into the category of primate—the same category as moneys and apes. (Perdew, p. 11) Although this points out a characteristically similar feature between humans and other primates, it brings no evidence against the thought that even though animals may have some form of rights, they are still inferior to humans. Once one is able to understand this, it becomes much easier to support the process of animal experimentation. If animals truly are inferior to humans, which I personally fully believe to be true, then why would we not better ourselves at their expense? Even though I find it completely ethical to perform experiments upon animals, I do also believe that there needs to be regulation on these forms of