Mievi1

Ines Mievi
Professor Gudelj
Critical Reading & Writing
6 December 2015
Animal Experimentation
In ancient Greek and Roman times animal testing was used for medicine with the
intention of the preservation of human lives. As early as the 1100's Even Ibn Zuhr, an Arab doctor
"introduced animal testing as an experimental method for testing surgical procedures before
applying them to human patients." (Hajar). Animal testing was used in one way or another until
the 19th century, when the first laws regulating were passed. This caused big problems in the
beginning of the 20th century, when two cases appeared. One pharmaceutical company gave out
a drug that helps people. No animal testing was done with the drug before it was brought to
market and it was since discovered to be harmful to humans. The other case appeared in the early
1960's when a drug company launched a new medicine which was supposed to be a painkiller
and a great drug to help people with headaches and coughing. It was a disaster when the longterm effects were revealed, as it turned out that pregnant women who used the drug gave birth to
limbless children. After that, the drug was withdrawn, and animal testing started. This raised
many questions about the morality of animal testing. This has been the subject of many books for
more than twenty years, two of which are written by college professors with opposing opinions;
Michael Allen Fox and Donna Yarri. Even though it appears that these two authors have opposing
opinions common ground can be found.

Mievi2
In 1986, professor Michael Allen Fox wrote The Case for Animal
Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective, in which he states,
in the very first sentence, that he supports using animals for the well-being of
the human race. He even states that he believes that most of the people who
read his work will agree with his point of view, to which he adds: "Why, then,
it is necessary to write a book defining it?" (Fox). He then explains how
people get the wrong idea about animal experimentation because of the
media and animal activists; he claims that they only "focus on animal
suffering in scientific research," and do not pay attention to the "benefits
gained from such research" (Fox)
However, professor Donna Yarri, in her book of Ethics of Animal
Experimentation, has a different point of view, and argues that "a good end
does not justify a bad means." She believes that every animal has a right to
not suffer; she also claims that "animals have mental states and are sentient"
and have inner "value in the sight of God."(Yarri) She thinks about it in a
more ethical way, and defines this topic as a controversial one. In her first
few sentences she writes that the purpose of her book is "to critically
examine the issue of animal experimentation" and she follows that fewer
experiments and animal tests need to be done, and that animals "can
experience pain and suffering" (Yarri).

Mievi3
Fox disagrees, by saying that it would be a mistake to conclude that
animals have rights and that anyone who thinks logically would say the
same. He states that "animals are not our moral equals" and should not be
treated as such. He essentially mocks Professor Yarri's religious perspective
by noting that God gave us domination over animals and claims that he
cannot see how referring to the Bible is useful or correct. Fox also adds that
humans have severely harmed the environment and that some of the
damage is irreparable, but "humans can choose and fashion their
environmental niche as they wish" and that is why people have the right to
experiment on animals. In other words, animal testing is beneficial and
necessary for the human species to sustain itself.
Yarri, on the other hand, thinks that this way of thinking is "unrealistic
because it is impossible to accurately predict in advance possible benefits [of
animal experimentation]." The issue of uncertainty in the benefits plays a big
role in the controversy surrounding animal experimentation. Professor Yarri
claims that the benefits that humans gain from animal testing "are not
sufficient to justify experiments done on animals,"(Yarri) even if some
benefits are "expected, possible, intended, likely, or even certain" -- the act is
not justified. She adds that "Christian tradition is often criticized" and had a
good role in the treatment of animals, and says it is not true and Christians
had a "mixed history" regarding animals.(Yarri) Instead, she argues that
Christians have had a far more positive influence on the treatment of

Mievi4
animals. Animals and humans have had a long relationship history which
should be respected.
Although it may seem that the perspectives of these two authors don't
have anything in common, some arguments can be found which lead to a
common ground. Professor Fox also sees the moral problem of differentiating
between smaller and bigger animals, as though the smaller ones are of lesser
worth. He asks: "Where do we draw the line?" (Fox) Do rare or beautiful
animals like lions, butterflies, ants and others, make animal experimentation
morally incorrect? He states that anything that lives and "is not a plant [is
considered] an animal" (Fox). Even though his viewpoint is in support of
research, he also thinks that animal suffering needs to be reduced or possibly
eliminated and more attention should be given to this aspect of the issue.
Yarri agrees; she writes that it makes no sense to decide that it is worse to use a chimp
than a small rodent, as "the same restrictions would apply with regard to pain." People should not
decide whether it is better to inflict pain to a dog or a chimp. She also adds that the number of
animals used for experimentation needs to be reduced. She proposes that animal pain and
suffering should be minimized and states that people still need to "raise philosophical and
theological questions" about animal experimentation (Yarri).
All in all, animal testing has a long history. "Animal experimentation is a unique issue
when looking at the relationship between humans and animals" (Kolar). Animal testing has been
used for over nine centuries and a debating issue for more than 200 years. While the debate over

Mievi5
ethical and moral issues surrounding it is not nearing an end, it remains obvious that, cruelty
factor aside, there is still no alternative in the pharmaceutical industry that could permanently
replace animal testing. "Millions of animals are used every year in oftentimes extremely painful
and distressing scientific procedures" (Kolar). Although Yarri and Fox seem to have totally
opposite points of view, morality allows them to have a common outlook. They together agree on
the need of lowering animal suffering, as well as the need of giving this issue more attention.

Mievi6
Works cited
Fox, Michael Allen. "The Case for Animal Experimentation." Google Books. University Of
California Press, 1986. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.
Hajar, Rachel. Animal Testing and Medicine. Heart Views: The Official Journal of the Gulf
Heart Association 12.1 (2011): 42. PMC. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.
Kolar, Roman. "Animal Experimentation."Http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.rit.edu/. Science and
Engineering Ethics, Mar. 2006. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.
Yarri, Donna. Ethics of Animal Experimentation: A Critical Analysis And Constructive Christian
Proposal. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, 2005. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 2
December 2015.