The full elimination of animal use in medical research may seem as unachievable to some individuals. However, while working with practical goals, the task is quite achievable. The aim of the practical goals lies within reducing the animal use in science laboratories by ensuring the improvement of the conditions within the laboratories where these animals are evaluated and tested. The solution for the animal use problem in medical research was established along a study in 1959 that presented three R`s. The R`s stand for replacing, reducing and redesigning. For replacing, it means that individuals in the practice of medical research have to substitute the experiments and tests as well as use things such as computer simulated tests along with experiments(Yount 55). The suggestion to reduce also covers the use of cultured cells rather than animals in the lab tests. Secondly, reducing refers to the procedure of redesigning the tests as well as experiments on animals so that the tests can be performed on a smaller number of animals. Finally, the suggestion to refine means that the researchers in medical practice should redesign the tests and experiments to cause less episodes of pain on the animals. The refining process entails causing less distress to the animals that are used in the medical procedures.
The rights movements have embraced the movement after a long period of convincing that the approach was the only right procedure in reducing the effects of animal use on medical labs. Working with medical researchers and pharmaceutical organizations facilitates the application of the three R`s as an initial process in bringing solutions in the medical research problem. The significance of the three R`s in solving the issue with animal rights is that it enables both the medical researchers and animal rights movements to benefit by having their issues addressed (Yount 54). The alternatives work better than having a total ban because medical research using animals focuses on assisting people. Some of the shortcomings in the process are that many processes in the human body occur in a complex way which cannot be simulated in computer programs or aided designs or cell cultures thus requiring the direct use of animals in the research. However, even with these procedures in place, some medical researchers continue to use animals in their research. For example, in 2004 alone, about 50 million animals were used in the research without including the invertebrates that include fruit flies and worms. The cause of demand in using these animals that stands out from the use of animals is that genetic engineering requires the live cells in animals because the changes being tested are diverse thus promoting the use of animals. According to Yount, the rights movement should also tackle the issues covering animals used in entertainment thus reducing their use in circuses and zoos (Yount 52).
The benefits of medical research have brought in areas such as hemophilia, organ transplantation, malaria and the spinal cord injuries. The application of medical research through lab tests on animals has not only brought significant benefits to humans but also benefits to animals through vet nary treatment. The benefits of such experimentation on the animals overpower some of the claims that have been raised by the opponents in animal use for medical research. The interests raised by animal rights proponents are insufficient in regard to the benefits accrued to both animals and human beings. The main argument suggested by the proponents of the animal rights movements is that the experiments are unnecessary given the availability of other alternatives in the research process. From the perspective of morality in the research process, it is imperative to focus on the said benefits that human beings gain. Therefore, the significant suggestion in solving the issue involves reducing the possible pain that may arise from the experiments (Cochrane 44). However, banishing these experiments is not possible due to the hard evidence that they provide which closely relates to the possible reactions of pharmaceutical products on human beings. The argument in this case should not be upon the pain on the animal’s side but also the benefits on both humans and animals.
Animal rights activists have challenged the idea of using animals in medical experiments by arguing that animal rights are grossly infringed when they are used in reaserch. Proponents argues that animals assume a fundamental moral right to be treated in a respectiful manner. However, it is apparent that this inherent value is hardly respected when animals are treated as tools in scientific experiements (Cohen 76). This presents as an immoral practice that should not be done to the living beings. Similar to human beings, animals perceive pain and can feel, which asserts the rationale of treating animals with the similar respect as humans. In essence, when animals are recruited in experiments, their rights are violent since they are not provided with a choice. For example, animals are often involved in tests that are often painful or capable of causing severe demage or death (Paul 48). The most unethical aspect of this practice is that animals are not offered a chance of not participating in such experiments. This means that despite the benefits realized by humans from animal experiments, the practice remain immoral since the animal’s basic right are violent. In other words, the consequences or risks are not taken by the ones who have choose to sacrifice themselves. In constrast, animal experiements present a situation where human’s exploit and tourture animals for their benefits without caring of their effect of their activities to the victims (Cohen 75). In this scenario, animals essentially present as voiceless sacrificial objects who are obliged to suffer the pain of the experiments for the benefit of their masters. This becomes apparent because animals do not sacrifice themselves for improvement of the human wellbeing and technology. Decision are made for them since they are unable to communicate their own choices and preferences. A situation in which humans are vested with the authority of deciding the fate of animals in researches, animal’s rights are withdrawn from them without caring about thier welfare or the quality of their lives (Cochrane 43). In this pesepective, animal rights activists believe that although animal experiments are beneficial to humans, such experiments need to be discouraged because they infringe into the rights of animals.
The major concerns in the conduct should include toxicity in the research. Prior to conducting the study, for the purpose of clarity, dangers of a compound must be researched. Breakthroughs in research provide the adequate materials to research the toxicity of chemicals (Cohen 74). Therefore, the conduct of the researchers should be based on the intention and knowledge of the substances that they put into use during the medical research. Trials on the toxicity should be repeated on culture cells and other matter thus not conducting the actual test on animals. Focusing the research on studying the material components in the pharmaceutical products is the way forward. The principle that should be maintained is the Primum non nocere that guides all physicians, indicating that first; the physician should do no harm. Therefore, the procedure should follow a process of winnowing out the bad components in a pharmaceutical product prior to conducting the tests on animals or human beings. However, following the right composition of components on a drug, the tests should be conducted on animals in order to create the confidence for clinical trials on humans (Cohen 75). Therefore, the animals used in the experimentation in this case should not be junk animals. Additionally, the medical practitioners conducting the study should aim for the survival of all the animals in the study.
Some researchers base their study on seeing the negative effects of chemicals on an animal while others intend to view the effects of different drugs in production. However, the breakthroughs in modern technology and science in both medicine and research enable researchers to reduce the negative effects of research on animals. The animals rights argument is validated, however, the proponents of this argument fail to provide solutions to the current problems raised. For example, the issue with genetic engineering studies is not fully covered by proponentsbecause the researchers have to base their studies on animals in order to view the changes (Paul 43). Medical research does not necessarily entail cruelty towards animals as seen in various experiments where the lab rats and other species used in the research survive. Therefore, the focus of the debate should be towards pushing against the issues of cruelty towards animals in medical research. Presumably, in the code of conduct that governs medical researchers, the focus should lie within advancing more humanly treatment towards animals and securing their safety during laboratory tests (Paul 37). The proponents should also work with government agencies in formulating regulations and guidelines that frame how cruelty against animals should be handled.
Medical practitioners should widen the scope of the directive on regulating the use of animals in research. The scope will cover a range of practices that should be prohibited in animal research for medical and pharmaceutical studies as well as the allowed practices. Additionally, the requirements pose that medical researchers should only use animals of a second and the older generations in research. The requirement makes it possible to have medical and experimental research on animals as well as reduce the chance in exhausting the wild populations. In situations where alternatives exist, the alternative approach must be used in order to reduce the effect on animal population (BBC10). Promoting the use of alternatives makes it possible for new progress in eliminating animal use in medical and pharmaceutical research. Finally, the requirements suggest that the researchers should work towards improving breeding in species. The measures are also required to work towards creating more care measures to ensure that the minimum levels of pain are attained during the procedures and experiments. Additionally, the proposal bans the experimentation on gorillas, chimps and apes other than in specific exceptional circumstances.
Works Cited
BBC News. BBC, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml>.
Cochrane, Alasdair. Animal Rights Without Liberation: Applied Ethics and Human Obligations. Vol. 1. WestHam: Penguin, 2010. Print.
Cohen, Carl, and Tom Regan. The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. Print.
Paul, Ellen Frankel. Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. New Brunswick, [N.J.: Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation :, 2001. Print.
Yount, Lisa. Animal Rights. Vol. 2. London: Infobase, 2005. Print.
