Animal Subjects In Medical Research - Antwaniesha Edwards EN

Animal Subjects in Medical research Antwaniesha Edwards ENG/200 ANIMAL RESEARCH

Animal subjects in medical research are involved in experiments that span basic scientific principles and clinical trials, aiming to understand human health and diseases. However, the practice of using animals for testing vaccines and drugs is highly contentious because it raises ethical issues related to animal rights, morality, and animal welfare. Critics argue that animal testing should be banned as it infringes on animals' rights, is morally problematic, and results in the death of countless animals.

Animal rights advocates contend that animals have moral rights, such as bodily integrity and the right not to suffer, which are violated when they are subjected to experiments without consent. For example, a 2014 nicotine study involved squirrel monkeys being addicted to nicotine to model its effects on humans. This testing caused distress and health issues such as gastric bloat, inflicting unnecessary pain on the animals. Such practices exemplify the suffering inflicted upon animals, which many believe is morally unjustifiable.

Furthermore, the use of animals in medical research may be ineffective because animals often respond differently to diseases and treatments compared to humans. Additionally, the moral concerns surrounding animal welfare have led many to adopt plant-based diets, driven by health, environmental, and ethical motives. Vegetarians and vegans avoid animal products because they perceive animal testing as wrong, and this shift highlights society’s increasing moral consciousness regarding animals.

The argument that animal testing is necessary for human medical advancement is increasingly challenged by evidence showing that the biological differences between humans and animals can lead to misleading or ineffective results. For instance, the nicotine study in 2014 resulted in the death of four out of 24 squirrel monkeys, illustrating the ethical dilemma and the potential loss of animal life (Kaplan, 2018). Morally, animals should have advocacy rights, akin to human rights, to prevent their unnecessary suffering and death for human benefit.

In conclusion, animal testing in medical research constitutes a significant violation of animal rights, raises moral concerns, and may not always provide accurate or applicable data for humans. As society progresses morally and scientifically, alternatives such as in vitro testing, computer modeling, and synthetic biology should replace animal experimentation, aligning scientific progress with ethical responsibility.

Paper For Above instruction

Animal research has been a longstanding component of medical science, instrumental in developing vaccines, medications, and understanding disease mechanisms. Nevertheless, the ethical implications of using animals as experimental subjects have sparked significant debate. Critics argue that animal testing infringes on fundamental rights, causes unnecessary suffering, and often produces results that are not directly transferable to humans, leading to calls for its abolition or severe reform.

At the core of the ethical critique is the recognition that animals possess intrinsic moral rights, including the right to bodily integrity and freedom from suffering. Philosopher Tom Regan emphasized that animals are “subjects-of-a-life” with inherent value, deserving moral consideration independent of their utility to humans (Regan, 1983). Experimental procedures that inflict pain, such as the nicotine addiction studies involving monkeys, exemplify practices that violate these rights. In the 2014 nicotine study, squirrel monkeys were forcibly exposed to nicotine, causing distress, health problems, and death, raising questions of morality and necessity (Kaplan, 2018).

Beyond ethical concerns, the scientific validity of animal testing is increasingly questioned. Biological differences between species mean that animals often do not accurately model human diseases or responses to treatments. Drugs that show efficacy in animals may fail in human trials, leading to wasted resources and delayed medical progress. Moreover, the suffering of animals—many of whom undergo invasive procedures—makes the practice morally questionable when less harmful alternatives exist.

Societal shifts towards vegetarianism and veganism further reflect evolving moral attitudes about animal welfare. People who adopt plant-based diets often do so out of concern for animal rights, environmental sustainability, and personal health (Bleidorn et al., 2020). This moral stance underscores the belief that animals should not be exploited for human benefit, challenging the ethical foundation of animal testing in medicine.

Alternatives to animal testing have demonstrated promising results. Technologies such as organ-on-a-chip, tissue engineering, and advanced computer models are increasingly capable of predicting human responses with greater accuracy and fewer ethical concerns. The use of human cell cultures and simulations minimizes suffering while providing more relevant data, addressing both moral and scientific shortcomings of traditional animal experiments (Hartung, 2013).

In conclusion, maintaining animal testing in medical research is ethically problematic and scientifically questionable. Society must prioritize the development and adoption of alternative methods that respect animal rights, reduce suffering, and improve the predictive power of experiments. Ethical responsibility and scientific integrity converge in urging a transition away from animal experimentation toward innovative, humane research strategies.

References

• Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., & Hopwood, C. J. (2020). Health, environmental, and animal rights motives for vegetarian eating. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0229278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229278
• Hartung, T. (2013). Food for thought... on animal testing and alternatives. ALTEX, 30(3), 275–278. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2013.3.275
• Kaplan, S. (2018, January 26). The new York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/health/monkey-studies-nicotine.html
• Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
• Donaldson, S. (2020). Animal Agora: Animal Citizens and the Democratic Challenge. Social Theory and Practice, 46(4), 583–599.
• Kotzmann, J., & Pendergrast, N. (2019). Animal rights: Time to start unpacking what rights and for whom. Mitchell Hamline Law Review, 45, 555–589.
• Hopwood, C., Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., & Chen, S. (2020). Health, environmental, and animal rights motives for vegetarian eating. PLoS ONE, 15(4), e0229278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229278
• Hartung, T. (2013). Food for thought... on animal testing and alternatives. ALTEX, 30(3), 275–278. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2013.3.275
• Kaplan, S. (2018, January 26). The New York Times.
• Schulte, B. (2014, October 26). Taking care of employees boosts Patagonia's bottom line. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com