Animal Research

Scientists have experimented on non-humans for centuries, the inherent purpose behind such research, whether it is a surgical procedure, testing of cosmetic products, or medicinal therapy, is to determine if these practices are capable of being harmful to humans. Therein lies a moral dilemma; should we place our needs before the mental and physical pain of other organisms? This essay argues that the gains scientists have made in medicine and other fields through the use of other animals are justified, and the immorality that is often associated with such research is derived from an idealistic and a very limited understanding of the world that we live in.

Some anti-vivisectionists argue that non humans deserved to be treated as fellow inhabitants on this planet of ours and not as toolkits to enhance the chances of our survival. That is the principle behind their concerted effort to eradicate animal testing. If this principle was to be applied, it would mean that we could not experiment on non-humans regardless of the benefits. Animal rights activists believe that injecting primates with the AIDS virus or to introduce toxic chemicals to rats is just not acceptable. Proponents of animal research argue that such a stance would greatly enhance human suffering; we all enjoy the benefits of modern medicine. The proper principle to be applied according to scientists is that we should place the priority on saving human lives and that prevention of animal suffering should be next in order, it is important that we regulate scientific research but if there is a major medical breakthrough to be had from animal suffering or death, Even the slums of today are far healthier than the wealthy sector of long ago (J.B.S Haldane 661). Medical research on animals is the (sometimes distasteful) means to much greater ends. And perhaps these activists do not understand the way our world works; or rather the scientist is an easy target for them. The fact that a sportsman is allowed to...