The Morality of Animal Testing - Assignment Example

The Morality of Animal Testing Name University Animal Testing Introduction Animal testing refers to the use of non-human animals in experiments1. The animals develop into prototypes in the measurement of different chemical reactions pertaining to a variety of human products ranging from pharmaceuticals to cosmetics2. The experiments integrate varied processes as some of the experiments may involve observation of the animal’s behavioural patterns while others involve dissection of the animals. The dialogue between the two individuals below seeks to identify whether it remains morally permissible to use non-human animals for our human purposes. She: (Sighs after reading an article). The usage of non-human animals in the testing process has developed into a normal occurrence in the scientific world3. Why do scientists assume they have the right to conduct experiments on non-human animals? He: To an extent, the process remains detrimental as the non-human animals undergo some length of suffering and consequent death. However, the process may not be fully outlined as immoral depending on the angle one if viewing it from. She: What do you mean? Are you seeking to justify the morality involved in the utilization of non-human animals in experiments? He: I may not be justifying the morality involved in the process. However, I am willing to review the positive outcomes attributed to the integration of tests in non-human animals for the betterment of humanity. There are numerous reasons that influence the integration of non-human animal tests for the overall benefit of humankind. Through the tests, numerous inventions and medical interventions have been realized, which have enhanced the overall life span of humans4. She: How can you justify the death of a non-human animal by maintaining that the death provides life for another being? He: I seek to correct you on this argument. I am not justifying the argument, but rather, I maintain that through the integration of non-human animal testing, the testing processes influence the development of numerous breakthroughs in a variety of fields. These breakthroughs remain instrumental in the development of human life in a more sustainable manner. She: I understand that some of the non-animal testing processes incorporated seek to enhance the overall benefit of humankind. However, how can all the testing processes remain justified in an equal manner while some of the tests do not produce viable results5? He: The essence of the testing process is to incorporate ‘tests’, which seek to meet stipulated hypotheses and seeks to identify varied results. The testing process may not be predictable as it involves the integration of varied processes geared towards influencing the identification of the most positive result. She: In essence, the testing process incorporates the trial and error method, which may lead to the loss of the non-human life? He: Yes and No, let me expound on my answer. Animal experimentation practices have been in existence for centuries dating back to 2BCE, which has influenced the adoption of the process by numerous scientific and medical processes. Arguments in favour of the practice maintain that animal testing maintained that the process is crucial to the development of advances in medical and biological knowledge6. However, increases in experimentation in this field have influenced the development of numerous criticism and controversy. Therefore, the integration of the testing process on non-human life remains instrumental in the identification of numerous scientific innovations geared towards providing several benefits to humankind. However, the non-human life utilized in the process may die due to increased exposure to toxic chemical substances that interfere with their biological structure. She: An increase in ethical testing stipulations pertaining to non-human life testing has raised concerns over the safety of the chemicals upon exposure to living creatures. Increased exposure of non-human life to chemicals develops into a detrimental effect on the creature’s lifespan and the chemicals utilized in the testing process affect health as the creature. The scientific process seeks to influence the development of possible treatment processes for the human population. However, the situation remains at the expense of non-human life creatures7. How justifiable is the treatment process? He: Morally, the situation may be considered unethical. However, non-human life testing has influenced the development of numerous breakthroughs in the medical and biological fields. In addition, the testing processes may not be incorporated among humans due to lack of the identification of definitive results pertaining to the process. Ethically, non-human life enhances the lifespan of human life as it influences the integration of numerous testing processes geared towards enhancing the sustainability of the overall population8. She: Animal testing has developed into a major hindrance in the evaluation of chemicals and ingredients. The argument develops basis in a variety of industries including pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. He: In response, animal testing has influenced the growth of the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry. The process influences the integration of numerous tests on animals to identify the viability of the medication to be administered to human life. In this scenario, the integration of non-human life tests remains critical as they influence the identification of the most viable pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics fits for human use. In contrast, lack of using non-human life would influence usage of humans9. However, the hypothesis process may not be experimented on human as it posses great risk. Therefore, administration of the process on non-human life provides the most viable option as non-human life incorporates similar anatomic features to humans. Additionally, the use of non-human life seeks to enhance the provision of the most viable and relevant results. She: I understand your argument. However, the anatomy of humans and some non-human life such as rats incorporate numerous differences. How assured are the processes for ensuring that the tests initiated remain applicable to humans10? He: Yes, human and non-human life experiences some differences in the anatomic structure. However, the differences remain limited hence assuring the viability of the developed results. Also, non-human life experiments are only incorporated among animals with the most anatomic similarity to humans, which remains geared towards influencing the provision of the most effective results. She: Additionally, animal-based tests are time-consuming and expensive as they necessitate several years of study coupled with high financial input. The extensive resources required pertaining to the process render the process more expensive as opposed to efficient. How does the situation favour the process? He: Yes, animal-based tests are identified as being time-consuming. However, the process remains logical as it necessitates a lengthy time to enhance the observation and reaction processes. In addition, non-human life requires time to identify the developing processes, which render the process lengthy. In addition, the process necessitates the integration of high financial inputs as they enhance the viability of the process. The provision of favourable investments in the process ensures that the process integrates the best quality machinery and processes, which enhance the viability of the tests11. In addition, effective experiments require numerous time and financial resources, which seem trivial upon the discovery of new medical and biological breakthroughs. She: The existence of physiological differences between humans and animals including mice and rats utilized in the evaluation of the safety of the chemicals limit the validity of the ensuing results. He: As previously identified, several psychological differences have to be experienced in humans and non-human life. However, the testing process is geared towards integrating tests that relate to similar anatomic structures and features. The variance experienced pertaining to the process are not limiting, but rather ensure that the results derived from the process maintain the highest level of viability and applicability12. She: Numerous studies maintain that information gathered from animal research may not be utilized in improving human health. How do you dispute with the provided opinion? He: I understand your argument, and it develops its basis from the differences identified between the physiology of humans and animals. As previously identified, the cardiovascular and pulmonary function experiments have influenced the development of the most instrumental medical breakthroughs. History, the integration of these tests on non-human life, influenced the development of an in-depth understanding of the body functions through the analysis of the internal organs. The insights developed from the experiments have remained instrumental in enhancing the current levels of medical practice13. For instance, anticoagulants were initially isolated in dogs while insulin was discovered in dogs and purified in rabbits. In addition, lung surfactants were initially extracted and studied from dogs and mice have been used in the development of effective breast cancer medication. Therefore, the analysis identifies that the majority of medical advances were enhanced through the integration of animal tests and have remained instrumental in the current level of knowledge experienced today. She: Several claims maintain that animal research has produced limited benefits due to the identification of low success rates. The low levels are considered as adequate in rendering the process unsuccessful. How can you expound on this argument? He: The interpretation process may be identified in both absolute and relative terms. Absolute interpretation influences the reinstatement of the inherent property of the scientific method. Scientific research integrates three main processes: postulation of a theory, which provides an account of the existent data, the generation of novel predictions pertaining to the theory and consequent integration of practical experiments14. The search process in most instances may not lead to the identification of the desired results, which remains scientific and necessitates the development of different hypotheses. The integration of the scientific processes seeks to integrate processes and experiences that narrow down the developed hypothesis. The process remains instrumental in ensuring that the developed solutions and explanations remain as the most viable. Similar strategies are identified as effective and have influenced the realization of numerous innovations in a variety of fields. The development of incorrect hypothesis and findings develop as an integral part of the scientific process. Therefore, one has to understand that science involves experiments, which do not guarantee the identification of a specific outcome, but remain instrumental in the identification of viable results pertaining to the process. The arguments developed pertaining to the relative interpretation argue that the success rate realized from animal research should develop its interpretation through the identification of an existent baseline. The argument identifies that the success rate develops its basis for the integration of human-based medical research. However, the claim may be verified due to the existence of numerous scientific research conducted on human subjects pertaining to various ailments including cancer and Alzheimer’s. However, there lacks supporting data pertaining to the developed view. The process would have otherwise been instrumental in the development of the necessary cure. The baseline success rate refers to the most preferred success rate among the majority of individuals. Therefore, the success rate may take longer than expected, but the process remains instrumental in the provision of the desired results relating to treatment. She: The developed links to between animal studies and medical breakthroughs pertaining to varied elements such as the respiratory, circulatory and digestive systems may be considered outdated. In addition, the current medical conditions experienced in the current times are identified as being more complex15. The process delimits the integration of biological functioning of animals in the desire to develop breakthroughs. My argument maintains that the usage of animal research has been exhausted in relation to the development of fundamental results. How would dispute this argument? He: Classic studies remain relevant to the research process as principles stipulated by the studies remain applicable in current situations pertaining to varied issues and processes experienced. For instance, the majority of research studies and processes may take more than ten years before the desired results are realized16. In addition, scientific use of animals twenty years ago is involved in the provision of some viable results in present times. For instance, scientific use of mice twenty years ago remained instrumental in the development of Herceptin, which remains instrumental in fighting breast cancer. The utilization of animals in scientific experiments remains necessary as the majority of the experiments influence the integration of invasive methods. Similar methods may not be integrated with humans due to the high-level of risk involved together with the resulting ethical concerns. In addition, the utilization of animals influences the integration of reasonable measures geared towards influencing the identification of potential alternatives that enhance the data collection process without the utilization of animals. Therefore, the developing concerns may be categorized as being ethical as opposed to scientific17. The use of animals in the process remains instrumental as they provide the scientist with an opportunity to control the external factors that influence the projected outcome. She: The developed arguments seek to identify that the only way to obtain the necessary data pertaining to scientific research involves the integration of animal experiments. He: The develop notion remains non-factual as the integration of animal experiments seek to influence the generation of the most viable result pertaining to the scientific process. Therefore, the process provides a viable process for the development of scientific breakthroughs that enhance the quality of life experienced by humankind18. However, scientists are constantly seeking new avenues geared towards developing other experimental processes that do not include animals. She: What are some of the animal-testing avoidance strategies developed in the scientific field? He: Increased inventions have sought to integrate computer models in the testing process in an effort to limit the usage of animals, which minimizes potential harm to the animals. The computer models developed seek to provide viable alternatives geared towards enhancing the scientific process while influencing the development of enhanced results19. Therefore, the usage of non-human animals for human purposes remains ethical in instances whereby humane care is integrated with the process. References Conn, P., & Parker, J. (2008). The Animal Research War, Palgrave Macmillan Dean, C. (2009). Am I making myself clear? A scientist’s guide to talking to the public. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Guerrini, A. (2003). Experimenting with humans and animals: from Galen to animal rights. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press Greaves, P., Williams, A., & Eve, M. (2004). First dose of potential new medicines to humans: how animals help. Nat Rev Drug Discovery, 3: p. 226–36. Greek, R., & Greek, J. (2010). Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philos Ethics Humanit Med, 5 (14). Hoehme, S. (2010). Prediction and validation of cell alignment along microvessels as order principle to restore tissue architecture in liver regeneration. PNAS, 10 (2). Mone, G. (2014). New Models in Cosmetics replacing Animal Testing. Communications of the ACM, 57(4). Rollin, B. E. (2006). Animal rights & human morality. Amherst (NY): Pro- metheus Books. Shanks, N., & Greek, C. (2009). Animal models in light of evolution. Boca Raton (FL): Brown Walker Press. Smith, W. J. (2009). A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy: the human cost of the animal rights movement. New York (NY): Encounter Books. Taylor, A., & Burbidge, J. W. (2009). Animals & ethics: an overview of the philosophical debate. Peterborough (Ontario): Broadview Press. Van der Meel, R., Symons, M., & Kudernatsch, R. (2011). The VEGF/Rho GTPase signaling pathway: a promising target for anti-angiogenic/anti-invasion therapy. Drug Discovery Today, 16: p. 219–28. Read More

She: I understand that some of the non-animal testing processes incorporated seek to enhance the overall benefit of humankind. However, how can all the testing processes remain justified in an equal manner while some of the tests do not produce viable results5? He: The essence of the testing process is to incorporate ‘tests’, which seek to meet stipulated hypotheses and seeks to identify varied results. The testing process may not be predictable as it involves the integration of varied processes geared towards influencing the identification of the most positive result.

She: In essence, the testing process incorporates the trial and error method, which may lead to the loss of the non-human life? He: Yes and No, let me expound on my answer. Animal experimentation practices have been in existence for centuries dating back to 2BCE, which has influenced the adoption of the process by numerous scientific and medical processes. Arguments in favour of the practice maintain that animal testing maintained that the process is crucial to the development of advances in medical and biological knowledge6.

However, increases in experimentation in this field have influenced the development of numerous criticism and controversy. Therefore, the integration of the testing process on non-human life remains instrumental in the identification of numerous scientific innovations geared towards providing several benefits to humankind. However, the non-human life utilized in the process may die due to increased exposure to toxic chemical substances that interfere with their biological structure. She: An increase in ethical testing stipulations pertaining to non-human life testing has raised concerns over the safety of the chemicals upon exposure to living creatures.

Increased exposure of non-human life to chemicals develops into a detrimental effect on the creature’s lifespan and the chemicals utilized in the testing process affect health as the creature. The scientific process seeks to influence the development of possible treatment processes for the human population. However, the situation remains at the expense of non-human life creatures7. How justifiable is the treatment process? He: Morally, the situation may be considered unethical. However, non-human life testing has influenced the development of numerous breakthroughs in the medical and biological fields.

In addition, the testing processes may not be incorporated among humans due to lack of the identification of definitive results pertaining to the process. Ethically, non-human life enhances the lifespan of human life as it influences the integration of numerous testing processes geared towards enhancing the sustainability of the overall population8. She: Animal testing has developed into a major hindrance in the evaluation of chemicals and ingredients. The argument develops basis in a variety of industries including pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.

He: In response, animal testing has influenced the growth of the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry. The process influences the integration of numerous tests on animals to identify the viability of the medication to be administered to human life. In this scenario, the integration of non-human life tests remains critical as they influence the identification of the most viable pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics fits for human use. In contrast, lack of using non-human life would influence usage of humans9.

However, the hypothesis process may not be experimented on human as it posses great risk. Therefore, administration of the process on non-human life provides the most viable option as non-human life incorporates similar anatomic features to humans. Additionally, the use of non-human life seeks to enhance the provision of the most viable and relevant results. She: I understand your argument. However, the anatomy of humans and some non-human life such as rats incorporate numerous differences. How assured are the processes for ensuring that the tests initiated remain applicable to humans10?

Read More