ACBS 160D: Human And Animal Interrelationships Term P 197062

ACBS 160D: Human And Animal Interrelationshipsterm Paper Instructions

ACBS 160D: Human and Animal Interrelationships Term Paper Instructions You will prepare a paper on an issue concerning human-animal interrelationships. In this paper, you will develop alternative (pro and con) positions on the identified issue, considering different perspectives (e.g., from medical research, conservationist, ethicist, farmer, etc.). The project involves three stages: outline, first draft (version 1), and a revised version (version 2).

The outline should be detailed and can be submitted for feedback, which will guide your writing of the first draft. The first draft should be thorough and represent your best effort, as it will also be graded and receive feedback. Using the feedback, you will produce a revised version, which may improve your grade if higher.

Topics are provided in D2L, and you should select one. The final paper should be 6-10 pages in length, double-spaced, using 12pt font, with 1-inch margins. Include a title page, but exclude references from the page count. You may include relevant graphs or illustrations, cited properly, but they are not included in the page length. Each section should start with a heading, following the provided template.

Sources must include at least 2 peer-reviewed articles supporting both the pro and con positions, cited in APA style. Clearly indicate in the references which reference supports the pro and which supports the con, by bolding the reference and adding a note after it (e.g., "Note: This peer-reviewed reference was used for the PRO position."). In-text citations should follow APA guidelines.

Your paper must paraphrase ideas—direct quotes are not allowed unless properly cited and used with quotation marks—and plagiarized work will be penalized severely. Use credible sources such as library tools, academic databases, and verified websites, and seek assistance if needed.

The final submission must be made through D2L in MS Word or PDF format by the due date. Late submissions will incur penalties. The grading rubric emphasizes organization, proper APA formatting, clarity of introduction, thesis, and conclusion, quality of research, and writing mechanics. Throughout the process, focus on critical thinking, balanced perspectives, and scholarly support.

Helpful resources include detailed outlines, APA style guides, and writing support services like the Writing Skills Improvement Program and tutoring services, which can aid in refining your work.

Paper For Above instruction

Title: Exploring Ethical Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Medical Research

Introduction

The ethical debate surrounding the use of animals in medical research continues to evoke passionate arguments from various stakeholders. Advocates emphasize the potential for groundbreaking medical advances that can alleviate human suffering, while opponents highlight the moral considerations regarding animal rights and welfare. This paper aims to explore both perspectives, presenting the main arguments with supporting evidence, and concludes with a balanced position based on ethical reasoning and scientific necessity.

Background and Context

The use of animals in medical research has been foundational to numerous medical breakthroughs, including vaccines, surgical procedures, and treatments for chronic diseases. However, it also raises questions about the moral status of animals, their capacity to suffer, and the societal implications of animal experimentation. Different cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions shape how societies view human-animal relationships and influence policies related to animal research.

Pro Position: Support for Animal Use in Medical Research

From a scientific and utilitarian perspective, proponents argue that animal research is essential for advancing medical knowledge that benefits humanity. Many medical researchers point to extensive evidence demonstrating that animal models have led to the development of treatments for diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, and Parkinson's disease. For example, the use of mice in genetic research has significantly advanced understanding of disease mechanisms and therapeutic targets (Feldberg & Russell, 2020).

Parents and patients also often support animal research because of the tangible health benefits. They believe that the potential for cures and improved treatments justifies the ethical costs, especially when alternative methods are not yet sufficiently reliable or developed. Animal welfare proponents who accept research argue that welfare can be safeguarded through regulation, humane endpoints, and ethical review processes (EPA, 2019).

Moreover, ethicists who endorse animal research often argue from a pragmatic standpoint—that the benefits to human health outweigh the ethical concerns, provided animals are treated humanely and used responsibly (Mellor & Stafford, 2018). They posit that animals lack the same moral status as humans due to differences in cognitive abilities, thus permitting limited use for the greater good.

Con Position: Opposition to Animal Use in Medical Research

Opponents highlight the intrinsic moral rights of animals, asserting that animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain and suffering, deserving respect and protection. Animal rights advocates argue that animals should never be used as means to human ends, emphasizing that experimental procedures often involve pain, distress, and death without fully considering their capacity for suffering (Regan, 2017).

Philosophers like Tom Regan (2017) contend that animals possess inherent value and should be granted rights similar to humans, challenging the moral legitimacy of animal experimentation. Such perspectives critique the assumption that animals are mere property or resources, emphasizing that scientific progress should not come at the expense of animal integrity.

Further, critics argue that animal models are often unreliable due to biological differences between species, which may lead to misleading or invalid results when translated to humans (Gerritsen et al., 2020). This raises concerns about the efficacy and ethics of animal testing as a scientific method, especially when alternative approaches like in vitro and computational modeling are advancing rapidly (Hood, 2021).

Additionally, the moral community increasingly recognizes the importance of environmental and ecological considerations. The suffering inflicted in animal research extends beyond individual animals to impact entire ecosystems and biodiversity, raising broader ethical questions about human dominion over nature (Cavalieri & Singer, 2016).

Discussion and Analysis

Balancing scientific progress with ethical considerations requires a nuanced understanding of both perspectives. The utilitarian argument emphasizes the potential for significant health benefits, which can improve quality of life and save lives. However, the deontological view emphasizes the intrinsic rights and welfare of animals, cautioning against instrumentalizing sentient beings for human convenience.

Regulatory frameworks, such as the Animal Welfare Act and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), aim to mitigate animal suffering, but critics argue these measures are insufficient and often superficial. The development of alternative methods, including organs-on-chips, stem cell research, and advanced computer modeling, presents a promising path forward, potentially reducing the reliance on animal models (Hood, 2021).

Conclusion

The debate over animal use in medical research involves complex ethical, scientific, and societal considerations. While animal research has historically contributed to vital medical progress, it raises significant moral questions about animal rights and welfare. A balanced approach advocates for strict regulation, ethical oversight, and increased investment in alternative methods that can fulfill scientific goals while respecting animal sentience. Ultimately, advancing medical research ethically requires continuous reflection, scientific innovation, and a commitment to minimizing animal suffering.

References

  • Cavalieri, P., & Singer, P. (2016). The Case for Animal Rights. Oxford University Press.
  • Gerritsen, R. J., et al. (2020). Biological differences between species in biomedical research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(5), 321-328. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105830
  • Hood, L. (2021). The role of computational modeling in reducing animal testing. Nature Biotechnology, 39(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00845-4
  • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2019). Guidelines for Animal Welfare in Research. EPA Publications.
  • Mellor, D. J., & Stafford, K. J. (2018). Animal welfare, ethics and the use of animals in research. In The Science and Ethics of Animal Research. Springer.
  • Regan, T. (2017). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
  • Feldberg, J., & Russell, W. M. (2020). Animal models in biomedical research: New challenges and opportunities. Journal of Biomedical Science, 27, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-020-02492-1
  • Gerritsen, R. J., et al. (2020). Biological differences between species in biomedical research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(5), 321-328. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105830
  • Mellor, D. J., & Stafford, K. J. (2018). Animal welfare, ethics and the use of animals in research. In The Science and Ethics of Animal Research. Springer.
  • Hood, L. (2021). The role of computational modeling in reducing animal testing. Nature Biotechnology, 39(3), 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00845-4

Related Assignments