Daniels 1

Emily Daniels

Van Velzer

Beginning Composition Block 4

10 March 2014

Should Animals be Used for Experimentation?

For centuries, researchers have used animals for both scientific and commercial testing in

laboratories across the world. These experiments have helped scientists discover many

treatments to fight illnesses in the human body be testing them on animals such as rats, mice,

rabbits, and monkeys. However, there is an issue between both scientists and animals rights

activists alike about whether or not it is ethical to use animal as test subjects and make them

suffer from experiments in order to benefit humans.

Scientists and researchers claim that animal testing has created huge leaps in medical

science and technology in order to better understand living organisms and how they function.
 Daniels 2

The ability to study different treatments and illnesses within animal subjects has led to the ability

to save countless human lives, and is therefore considered vital to the benefit of humans.

According to ProCon.org, all medical breakthroughs within the past century has come from

animal research. The website also interviews Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas

M.D Anderson Cancer Centers animal research facility, who claims, We wouldnt have a

vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees. Many believe that without the ability to test cures

and treatments on animals, many people would die from diseases and illnesses that we would not

be able to find a cure for.

There are many animal rights activists who believe that animals have the same moral

status as humans and are having their rights violated when being experimented on. These rights

are being violated because the animal is going through suffering and possible death and does not

have the option to decline from the experiment. According to Heather Dunnuck, student at Lone

Star College, philosophy professor of North Carolina State University Tom Regan claims,

animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because

the animals basic right is being infringed. Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not

choose to take them. According to those against animal testing and research, animals are no less

morally significant than humans and should be given equal treatment.

Those that approve of animal research believe very much the opposite on the moral status

of animals compared to the animals rights activists and those against animal research. In

experiments that could possibly injure or kill the test subject, it is believed that it is ethically

wrong to put a hunas life in danger to the benefit of science. Since many think that animals are

less morally significant than humans because of their inability to make the decisions on their

own as to choosing whether or not they wish to be involved with the experiment, scientists prefer
 Daniels 3

using animals over humans on these tests. According to ProCon.org, the World Medical

Association of Helinski declared that human trials must come after tests on animals. This ensures

the safety of human lives if there is any possibility of injury or death during the experiment.

However, those who protest animal research claim that animals feel pain and emotion just

as humans do, and that it should be ethically wrong to put the animal test subjects through

experiments that make them experience pain or death. According to ProCon.org, the Humane

Society International states that test animals are commonly force fed, given burns and other

wounds, having their necks broken, and getting decapitated during experimental tests. This can

cause much pain and suffering for the animals being tested. Heather Dunnuck, a student from

Lone Star College, interviewed philosophy professor of North Carolina State University Tom

Regan, who states that Animasl are subjects of a life just as human beings are, and a subject of a

life has inherent value.