Ethical arithmetic Animal experiments and ethical arithmetic The consequentialist justification of animal experimentation can be demonstrated by comparing the moral consequences of doing or not doing an experiment.
We have 4 possible new drugs to cure HIV. An alternative, acceptable answer would be, none of those drugs because even drug D could cause damage to humans. But these are two conceptually different things. The harm that will result from not doing the experiment is the result of multiplying three things together: The Use of Animals in Medical Research, If those human subjects were normal and able to give free and informed consent to the experiment then this might not be morally objectionable.
Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Avon, Sadly, there are a number of examples where researchers have been prepared to experiment on human beings in ways that should not have been permitted on animals.
Not all scientists are convinced that these tests are valid and useful. Drug B killed all the dogs and rats. The general moral character of the experimenter is irrelevant. Instead, they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people.
Are animal experiments useful? The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of ethical self-examination.
In the animal experiment context, if the experiment takes place, the experimenter will carry out actions that harm the animals involved. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings.
The basic arithmetic If performing an experiment would cause more harm than not performing it, then it is ethically wrong to perform that experiment.
Justifying animal experiments Those in favour of animal experiments say that the good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals. That is true, which is why Drug D would be given as a single, very small dose to human volunteers under tightly controlled and regulated conditions.
And as one philosopher has written, if this means that there are some things that humanity will never be able to learn, so be it. Other approaches Other approaches to animal experiments One writer suggests that we can cut out a lot of philosophising about animal experiments by using this test: 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.
The main changes proposed are: If the experiment does not take place the experimenter will not do anything. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. The lack of ethical self-examination is common and generally involves the denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects.
Drug C killed all the mice and rats. Drug A killed all the rats, mice and dogs.
Animal experiments and drug safety Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that.
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.
The harm that will be done to the animals is certain to happen if the experiment is carried out The harm done to human beings by not doing the experiment is unknown because no-one knows how likely the experiment is to succeed or what benefits it might produce if it did succeed So the equation is completely useless as a way of deciding whether it is ethically acceptable to perform an experiment, because until the experiment is carried out, no-one can know the value of the benefit that it produces.
Indeed, given that problems exist because scientists must extrapolate from animal models to humans, one might think there are good scientific reasons for preferring human subjects.
So the acts and omissions argument could lead us to say that it is morally worse for the experimenter to harm the animals by experimenting on them than it is to potentially harm some human beings by not doing an experiment that might find a cure for their disease.Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Dec 08, · Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings.
If a drug passes the animal test it's then tested on a small human group before. Frequently Asked Questions About Animal Testing Isn’t testing on animals necessary to protect people from dangerous chemicals?
If animal tests are ineffective and unnecessary, why do scientists still do them? Non-animal alternatives are also typically much more cost-effective than tests that use animals. What are the alternatives to animal testing?
There are already many products on the market that are made using thousands of ingredients that. But because only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning animal use for testing and research, the precise number is unknown.
If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue? fundamental differences in genetics, physiology and biochemistry can result in wildly different reactions to both the illness. A Toy 1/11/12 Animal Testing Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation.
It is estimated that 50 to million animals worldwide are used yearly.Download