A special discussion of the ethical issues and moral implications of using animal experiments in biomedical research. Are animals to be assigned the same moral status as humans? If animal research stops due to ethical and moral considerations, how will new biomedical treatments be tested? Where should the line be drawn between moral animals and animals that should not?
Jerod M. Loeb et al. in “Human vs. Animal Rights: A Defense for Animal Research,” animal research is necessary to develop effective treatments for diseases that affect not only humans, but animals as well. Tom Regan and colleagues, on the other hand, believe that animal research is unethical and lacks respect for the inherent value of the animal.
In “Human vs. Animal”, Jerod M. Loeb et al. begin the argument by establishing that animal rights groups do not understand the need for animal research. Their argument is supported by a brief history of the use of animal research to advance medical science. During the more than 1,000-year history of the use of animals in research, technological advances such as vaccines for infectious diseases such as pertussis, rubella, rubella, and poliomyelitis have been made. In addition, many surgical techniques, such as coronary coronary arteries, were first developed through animal experiments. Humans are the only species that have benefited from animal research. Various vaccines have been found to protect various animals, cats, dogs, horses, and pigs just to name a few – from diseases ranging from measles to encephalitis, all from animal research. The opposing argument that adequate alternatives to animal research should be used to animal facts is contradicted by the fact that in most cases there are no alternatives to using animals in research . If animals do not continue to be researched, many more people will suffer and/or die if nothing viable is found.
In “Ill-Gotten Gains,” Tom Regan argues that the case against animal research can be built around the principle of inherent value and individual value. But under the law he admits that the right of animals is inferior to that of men. He asserts, however, that the law cannot always be held to belong to the moral system. In other words, when animals do not have legal rights, it does not necessarily mean that they are not moral, ethical. His argument is supported by the distinction between harm and harm. It states that reducing pain in an animal during research does not mean that the animal is not harmed. It defines harm as reducing the individual’s utility. This connects directly with his discussion of inherent value, which he considers to be inherent value possessed by individuals. The basis of his argument is that if we considered that individual animals have inherent value, animal research would not continue.
Key terms include particularism and intrinsic value. Speciesism is the idea that we distinguish humans from other animals by adhering to animal practices that are animal research. Inherent value is the recognition that individuals represent value in living. Those who support a ban on animal research believe that animals have inherent value.
