should animals be used for scientific research argumentative essay

Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay

Should animals be used in research? This argumentative essay aims to answer the question. It focuses on pros and cons of animal testing for scientific and medical goals.

Introduction

• The Arguments

Works Cited

All over the world, animal activists and institutions have argued whether or not research should be used on animals or should be outlawed. Philosophers believe that experiments on animals are not morally justified because they cause pain or harm the animals. A group of these philosophers believe that other alternatives are available, thus they claim that because we have other alternatives, the use of animals in research should be outlawed.

Should Animals Be Used in Research? The Arguments

In my opinion, I support the line of argument that animals should not be used in research. Since the discovery of knowing through science (research), the use of animals in research has elicited mixed reactions among different scholars. Philosophers are against the idea citing the availability of other options for toxicological tests on animals and the harsh treatments the scientists have accorded these animals in the medical tests. Unless scientists discover other ways of testing medicines, I think tests on animals are unethical.

Scientists use these creatures to validate a theory and then revise or change their theories depending on the new facts or information gained from every test performed. Animal rights lobby groups believe that animals are used for no reasons in these experiments as the animals endure pain inflicted on them during these tests (Singer 2). They tend to overlook the fact that animals have moral existence, social and religious values. Thousands of animals on this planet contribute largely to the aesthetic appeal of the land.

On the other hand, scientists only see the positive contributions of animal tests to the medical field and ignore the side effects of the tests on the animals’ lives. They overlook the idea that animals are hurt and thus suffer tremendously.

To them the impact of the research on the lives of their families and friends by coming up with vaccines and drugs is the inspiration. Research on animals should be banned because it inflicts pain, harms the culprits and morally it is unjustified. Has man ever wondered whether or not animals feel similar pain that humans feel? (Singer 2).

Human beings know very well that they themselves feel pain. For example, you will know that a metal rod is hot by touching it with bare hands. It is believed that pain is mental; in other words it cannot be seen. We feel pain and we realize that other creatures also feel pain from observations like jerking away from an event or even yelling.

Since the reactions are the same as those of man, philosophers say that animals feel similar pain just like humans. Animal activists reaffirm that the major undoing of tests involving animals is the manner in which the animals are treated arguing that anesthesia for suppressing the pain is never used.

However, as many people are opposed to the use of animals in research, many lives have been saved every year due to their death. I think that instead of refuting that taking away the life of a rat is unethical, harms the animal; I believe it is a bold step in improving the welfare of millions of people for thousands of years to come. Tests on animals are the most common toxicological tests used by scientists; the findings help to better lives for hundreds of people across the universe (Fox 12).

Fox, Michael A. The Case for Animal Experimentation. California: University of California Press, 1986.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House, 1975.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 27). Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/

"Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 27 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay'. 27 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

1. IvyPanda . "Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/should-animals-be-used-in-research/.

• Aspects of the Writing an Argumentative Essay
• An Argumentative Essay: How to Write
• Writing Argumentative Essay With Computer Aided Formulation
• Ethical Problems of the Animal Abuse
• The Debate About Animal Rights
• Animal Cloning Benefits and Controversies
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved
• Experimentation on Animals

Should Animals Be Used for Research?

Introduction, unethical and inhumane, alternatives to the use of animals, animal models are ineffective, counterarguments and rebuttal, works cited.

Animals, from rabbits to dogs, are widely used in research studies as test subjects. They are an important component that allows scientists to increase their knowledge regarding human biology and health, as well as develop new drugs. The use of animals in scientific research has been a hotly debated and controversial issue that has attracted opponents and proponents. Proponents of the practice argue that they are critical in the development of new medicines while opponents claim that it is unethical to subject animals to suffering solely for human benefit. Scientists are required to act responsibly while using animals in laboratories by following a set of principles. These rules are referred as the “three Rs,” which stand for replace, reduce, and refine. Despite the existence of these rules, the use of animals for research has increased significantly. Animals should not be used in research because this practice is unethical and inhumane, better alternatives exist, and animal models are ineffective because of the differences that exist between human and animal bodies.

One of the main reasons why animals should not be used in scientific research is because of the unethical and inhumane nature of the practice. Millions of animal tests that involve painful procedures are carried out each year. Like humans, animals feel pain and exposing them to operations such as injections, burns, and cuts is a violation of their rights (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 41). The acceptance of animals as organisms with rights implies that any activity that violates them in order to benefit humanity is unethical (Kalof, p. 35). In the United States alone, approximately 26 million animals are used in various research projects: the development of drugs, determination of medicines’ toxicity, and the testing of the safety of medical products (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 65). Animals are deliberately injected with toxic chemicals and infected with diseases to study their effects on tissues and progression in the body respectively (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 43). The American Veterinary Medical Association acknowledges that animals suffer both physical and emotional pain. Toxicity tests expose them to painful and deadly experiments. For example, in the Draize test, a toxic substance is placed in a rabbit’s eyes and monitored to evaluate the damage it causes to various tissues (Kalof, p. 37). The LD50 test is deadly because it tests the amount of a specific drug that is required to cause death (Kalof, p. 37). An animal is administered with a test product until it dies, which could take a long time. This amount of suffering is unethical and violates animal rights.

The Humane Society International has revealed that the majority of animals used in research suffer due to food and water deprivation, infliction of cuts and burns, forced feeding, and exposure to artificial environments. As mentioned earlier, animals deserve respectful treatment as living organisms. Therefore, using them as tools in experiments is immoral. Moreover, others are killed through cruel methods that include carbon dioxide asphyxiation and decapitation (Kalof, p. 42). A report released by the United States Department of Agriculture supported this claim by revealing that more than 300,000 animals used in scientific research within a span of 12 months were subjected to painful experiences (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 73). Tests carried out on animals are usually painful, and could cause permanent damage and death if carried out improperly. Opponents of the use of animals in research argue that using animals for research is unethical since they do not choose to participate in experiments in order to benefit humanity (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 53). The decision is made on their behalf, and their rights are violated without any regard for their well-being. Animals use in research should be abolished because cheaper and more accurate alternatives that are more effective and harmless exist.

The existence of viable alternatives is another reason why animals should not be used for research. Technological advancements and increased innovations have led to the development of effective methods that can be used instead of animals in scientific studies. For example, the development of various 3D printing approaches offers numerous study opportunities like tissue bioprinting that can be used by scientists (Kalof, p. 51). Other alternatives include artificial human skin, mathematical models, cell cultures, advanced computer-modelling techniques, and human tissues (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 57). These can be used to study the effect of diseases on the human body as well as their response to various drugs and treatments. EpiDerm and ThinCert are the examples of artificial human skin products that can offer better results than animal skin (Akhtar, p. 423). These products mimic the human skin because they are manufactured from human skin cells.

Several organizations have started initiatives to fight for the rights of animals by advocating for the eradication of the practice. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency is committed to eliminate chemical testing in animals by the year 2035 (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 75). Human Society International has conducted studies to compare the costs of animal testing and in vitro testing. The results have revealed that animal testing is more expensive because of “the costs incurred to breed, feed, and treat the animals” (Meijboom and Stassen, p. 75). Moreover, it is argued that alternative methods are better because they exclude species differences that exist between human beings and animals (Kalof, p. 54). They are also cost-effective and take little time to develop, unlike animals that take several months to rear (Burden et al, p. 4). An organization known as People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) invests in the development of some of the aforementioned alternative methods. It advocates for the abolishment of animal testing by promoting the preeminence of their techniques to animals among governments and research organizations.

Advanced methods such as organ-on-chips, cell-based tests and tissue models, and the use of human lung cells are examples of in vitro testing methods that are common among modern researchers. Computer modeling has been used to effectively simulate the progression of diseases in the human body and their response to different drugs (Kalof, p. 57). Human volunteers are also used to test new drugs through the administration of small quantities, which are monitored through cutting-edge imaging techniques to determine its effect on the body (Burden et al, p. 5). Brain imaging techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intracranial electroencephalography can replace rats, rabbits, and cats as test subjects in studies involving brain damage (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 94). These technologies allow researchers to study the functioning of minute brain components like neurons.

Animal models are not effective test subjects because they are significantly different from human beings. A common argument for the abolishment of the use of animals in research is the existence of major differences between animal and human body systems. Numerous cellular, metabolic, and anatomic differences exist between the two (Kalof, p. 64). Therefore, animals make poor models that produce misleading results, which are detrimental to human health. For example, the reaction of a new drug in a rat, rabbit, or guinea pig will be different from its reaction in human beings (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 54). Scientists have shown the difficulty experienced in modeling human diseases in animals. For instance, the pathology of stroke is well understood. However, an accurate model of the disease in animals has never been attained.

In the past, many drugs that were tested successfully on animals were rejected because they failed to work when used on human beings. A sleeping pill known as thalidomide that was developed in the 1950s and certified as safe after tests on animals was detrimental to human health. Its ingestion caused severe deformities to more than 10,000 newborn babies (Rocklinsberg et al, p. 69). Afterwards, during subsequent studies, the drug was administered to cats, hamsters, mice, and guinea pigs. The animals gave birth to normal offspring unless in cases where high doses of the drug were involved. Arthritis drug, Vioxx, “caused more than 27,000 heart complications, even though it had been certified safe for human use” (Botting, p. 65). During studies, researchers found out that it had protective capabilities on the hearts of mice, thus making a conclusion that it would also benefit the human heart. These examples show that animal models can produce misleading results and lead to health complications and even death in severe cases.

Some scientists have faulted animal testing because laboratory procedures and conditions affect the physiology and behaviors of test subjects. These factors are difficult to control and they have a significant impact on the outcome of research studies (Akhtar, p. 411). The placement of animals in artificial environments (restricted housing environments and artificial light) causes distress and uncharacteristic behaviors. For example, higher levels of blood pressure have been observed in rats that watch others face decapitation (Akhtar, p. 411). Moreover, certain conditions can cause neurochemical and genetic changes that have a considerable influence on study results.

Proponents of the use of animals for research argue that the practice should be encouraged because it provides effective study models, has advanced the knowledge of human health, and has led to the development of new drugs and treatments. Moreover, they claim that alternatives do not offer whole-body living systems and existing laws ensure that there is sufficient regulation (Burden et al, p. 5). For example, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) protects the rights of animals by stipulating the required housing standards and veterinary care (Botting, p. 44). Animals have shorter life cycles than human beings. Therefore, the use of human volunteers is an effective alternative.

These arguments are misleading because the disadvantages of animal testing outweigh its benefits. According to Akhtar, “physiological and anatomical differences between animals and human beings render them ineffective models” (p. 413). Moreover, they ignore the numerous deaths and health complications that have been caused by drugs that were certified as safe after testing on animals. The Animal Welfare Act was amended in 1972 to exclude mice, rats, and birds from the list of protected animals. This indicates that the practice is highly unregulated because these animals account for approximately 90 percent of the test subjects used in all experiments. Studies have shown that alternative methods are cheaper and more effective (Burden et al, p. 7). The benefits that proponents of animal use in research cite as laudable reasons for the continuation of the practice can be produced in other ways without causing suffering to animals. The number of animals used in research and the amount of pain they undergo are so high that using them while alternatives exist in morally unjustifiable.

The use of animals in research is a controversial issue because opponents and proponents are divided on whether it should be banned or promoted. Millions of animals, including rats, mice, monkeys, guinea pigs, and rabbits, are subjected to painful procedures in laboratories across the world. They are used in scientific processes like product toxicity testing, disease progression studies, and drug safety evaluations. Proponents argue that the practice has led to the development of innumerable drugs and treatments that have saved humanity. They claim that animals provide a whole-body system that is similar to that of human beings in many ways. At the same time, opponents argue that the practice should be abolished because it is inhumane and unethical and the majority of drugs that worked in animals failed in human beings. Animals should not be used in research because it is unethical, cheaper and more effective alternatives exist, animals do not provide perfect models, and the field is unregulated. Animals and human beings are physiologically and anatomically different. Moreover, procedures and artificial environments present in laboratories cause behavioral and other changes that influence test results. Many people have died from drugs that were tested on animals and declared safe. The health complications caused by toxic chemicals, the cruelty that animals are exposed to, and the existence of cheaper and more accurate alternatives are sufficient reasons why animals should not be used for research.

• Akhtar, Aysha. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.” Cambridge  Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , vol. 24, no. 4, 2015, pp. 407-419.
• Botting, Jack. Animals and Medicine: The Contribution of Animal Experiments to the Control of  Disease . OpenBook Publishers, 2015.
• Burden, Natalie, et al. “Testing Chemical Safety: What is Needed to Ensure the Widespread Application of Non-animal Approaches?” PLOS Biology , vol. 13, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1-8.
• Kalof, Linda, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies . Oxford University Press, 2017.
• Meijboom, Franck, and Elsbeth Stassen, editors. The End of Animal Life, A Start for Ethical  Debate: Ethical and Societal Considerations on Killing Animals . Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2016.
• Rocklinsberg, Helena, et al. Animal Ethics in Animal Research . Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, February 2). Should Animals Be Used for Research? https://studycorgi.com/should-animals-be-used-for-research/

"Should Animals Be Used for Research?" StudyCorgi , 2 Feb. 2022, studycorgi.com/should-animals-be-used-for-research/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Should Animals Be Used for Research'. 2 February.

1. StudyCorgi . "Should Animals Be Used for Research?" February 2, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-animals-be-used-for-research/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Should Animals Be Used for Research?" February 2, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-animals-be-used-for-research/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Should Animals Be Used for Research?" February 2, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/should-animals-be-used-for-research/.

This paper, “Should Animals Be Used for Research?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: March 31, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Using animals for scientific research is still indispensable for society as we know it

Senior Advisor Animal Ethics and Outreach, Donders Centre for Neuroscience, Radboud University

Professor, Radboud University

Associate Professor in Neuroinformatics, Radboud University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

Kenya’s national airline – Kenya Airways – made headlines when it announced it would stop transporting monkeys for animal research. This followed an accidental highway crash in Pennsylvania , in the US, which involved a truck transporting monkeys that had been bred in Mauritius for laboratory experiments in the US.

Following the accident, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) US, an animal rights group, contacted Kenya Airways urging them to reconsider transporting the animals, putting forward their view that animal experimentation is a cruel industry.

Read more: The macaque monkeys of Mauritius: an invasive alien species, and a major export for research

Such an incident is indeed tragic. But if we consider the number of people who would have died without the existence of medication and novel medical technologies developed thanks to animal research, then ending animal research could lead to a more tragic outcome in the longer term.

Most countries do animal research, perhaps not very tiny countries or very poor countries. There is a nationwide ban on animal testing for cosmetics throughout the European Union, Israel, Norway, as well as in India. But animal testing for other reasons is still widely accepted.

Most of the animals used come from commercial breeders – one is Jackson Laboratory in the US. Other sources include specialist breeders and large breeding centres which can provide genetically modified animals for specific research. The animal testing facilities themselves may also rear animals.

In general, all over the world, policymakers do aim to move towards animal-free methods of scientific research and have introduced very strict regulations for animal research.

Scientists and policymakers share the long-term goal of reducing animal use in scientific research and where possible eventually even stopping it. It’s an ambitious goal. For this to happen, animal-free methods need to be developed and validated before they can become a new standard.

Animal-free innovations have been developed for some areas of biomedical research, such as toxicology . However, most parties recognise that at present, not all research questions can be answered using only animal-free methods.

Based on decades of doing research on the human brain, which involves using animals, to us it’s clear that – for the foreseeable future – there remains a crucial need for animal models to understand health and disease and to develop medicines.

Unique knowledge

It is animal research that provides researchers with unique knowledge about how humans and animals function. Perhaps more than in any other field of biomedical research, complete living animals are needed to understand brain function, behaviour and cognition.

Behaviour and cognition, the final outputs of a brain organ, cannot be mimicked using any existing animal-free technologies. We currently simply do not understand the brain well enough to make animal-free solutions.

Another striking, very recent example that showed the current need for animal research is the COVID-19 pandemic . The way out of the pandemic required the development of a functioning vaccine. Researchers amazed the world when they made targeted vaccines available within one year. This, however, has relied greatly on the use of animals for testing the efficacy and safety of the vaccine.

A key fact that remains often invisible is that the rules and regulations for conducting animal research are, in comparison, perhaps even stricter and more regulated, by for example the Animal Welfare act in the US and the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes in Europe. Than, for example, in the food and entertainment industry, although regulations are in place here too such as governmental rules for the treatment of animals in order to protect their health and wellbeing.

Should it be banned?

In the world as we know it today, animal research is still generally accepted as part of society. There are many important reasons why laboratory animal research is still needed:

To learn about biological processes in animals and humans.

To learn about the cause of diseases.

To develop new treatments and vaccines and evaluate their effects.

To develop methods that can prevent disease both in animals and humans.

To develop methods for the management of animals such as pests but also for the conservation of endangered species.

Of course many, animal researchers included, are hopeful that one day animal experiments will no longer be necessary to achieve the much needed scientific outcomes. However, the situation is that for many research questions related to human and animal health we still need animals.

As long as we cannot replace animals, there should be more focus on transparency and animal welfare, to benefit the animals as well as science. Awareness and financial support of this at the governmental level is key to enable animal researchers to always strive for the highest level of animal welfare possible.

• Scientific research
• Science and innovation for development

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• JME Commentaries
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 28, Issue 1
• Animals in Research: For and Against
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.28.1.61

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

L Grayson. The British Library, 2000, £35, pp 300. ISBN 071230858X

The use of animals for the purpose of scientific research is an emotive subject. The moral arguments often exhibit polarised positions: the scientific demand for absolute freedom of research, and the abolitionist demand for a total ban on all animal experiments. At one extreme are those who argue that research on animals is essential in the battle against disease, and on the other extreme it is argued that the cost in terms of animal suffering is too high and that if experiments were prohibited medical researchers would find some other means of ensuring scientific progress. The rhetoric employed is also suggestive of a polarity: experimenters are accused of cruelty and indifference, whereas campaigners on behalf of animals are accused of irresponsibility and insensitivity towards the wellbeing of humans. Yet to ask which side is right is to betray a misunderstanding of the complex nature of the debate, in which a plethora of interrelated ethical and scientific issues find expression in a wide spectrum of viewpoints.

One of the strengths of Animals in Research is that Grayson recognises the complexity of this issue, and in the opening chapter, which surveys the moral and philosophical debate over animal research, there is an appeal for constructive listening. Avoiding either extreme, Grayson opens with a comprehensive survey of the many different standpoints that have found expression in the animal research debate. The second and third chapters focus on public perspectives on animal research and the development of legislation and regulations since the Victorian period. The fourth chapter investigates issues that have drawn the attention of scientists and animal rights and welfare groups since the 1886 act which dealt with research on animals.

As in most ethical debates neither side offers support for needless suffering, and the way forward lies in the consideration of ways to minimise any necessary suffering both in general and individually. Chapters five and six therefore address the three Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement) which have emerged as objectives on which otherwise disparate parties can agree. Replacement and reduction seek to minimise the number of animals used in research and refinement is bound up with the minimisation of pain, distress and lasting harm inflicted upon animals. This discussion is the most significant part of the book, as it indicates the possibility of dialogue and consensus among medical scientists, animal welfare campaigners, government bodies, teachers, and regulatory agencies. Grayson recognises that medical scientists are ethical and shows how the research community have demonstrated that scientists are taking legitimate concerns about animal welfare seriously. She refers to the British Association for the Advancement of Science which maintains that continued research involving animals is essential for the conquest of many unsolved medical problems, but recognises that those involved must respect animal life, using animals only when essential, and should adopt alternative methods when available. Grayson also refers to a survey of British doctors in 1993, which indicated 94% agreement that animal research was important to medical advance, while 92% favoured more investment in the development of non-animal alternatives ( 36 ).

The final two chapters look to the future. Grayson argues that the debate on animal research is likely to intensify, with concern over transgenic animals and the use of animals as organ transplant sources. For those who are interested in the ongoing debate over animal research the final chapter provides comprehensive details of relevant organisations and web sites.

This is an excellent introduction to the animal experiment debate. Each chapter is carefully balanced and is free from the emotive rhetoric which so often clouds the arguments. Moreover, there are summaries, lists of publications, and information about interest groups which are relevant to each standpoint covered in the book. Animals in Research is an essential source for teachers and researchers in the veterinary sciences, and it will be of considerable value to the ethicist who is concerned with the broader moral issues related to medical research and human wellbeing.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• Animal research nexus: a new approach to the connections between science, health and animal welfare Gail Davies et al., Medical Humanities, 2020
• Reforming the politics of animal research Lisa Hara Levin et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2015
• Is there a place for animal experiments? Kevin Dolan, British Journal of Ophthalmology, 2002
• Different views on ethics: how animal ethics is situated in a committee culture M Ideland, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2009
• Is it acceptable to use animals to model obese humans? A critical discussion of two arguments against the use of animals in obesity research Thomas Bøker Lund et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2013
• Trends in animal use at US research facilities Justin Goodman et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2015
• Knowledge and opinions of veterinary students in Italy toward animal welfare science and law D. Magnani et al., Veterinary Record, 2017
• One Health and paradigms of public biobanking Benjamin Capps et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2014
• Support for use of animals in research , Veterinary Record, 2005
• Researchers commit to greater openness on research involving animals in the UK Ingrid Torjesen, BMJ: British Medical Journal, 2014

• News/Events
• Arts and Sciences
• Design and the Arts
• Engineering
• Global Futures
• Health Solutions
• Nursing and Health Innovation
• Public Service and Community Solutions
• University College
• Thunderbird School of Global Management
• Polytechnic
• Downtown Phoenix
• Online and Extended
• Lake Havasu
• Research Park
• Washington D.C.
• Biology Bits
• Bird Finder
• Coloring Pages
• Experiments and Activities
• Games and Simulations
• Quizzes in Other Languages
• Virtual Reality (VR)
• World of Biology
• Meet Our Biologists
• Listen and Watch
• PLOSable Biology
• All About Autism
• Xs and Ys: How Our Sex Is Decided
• When Blood Types Shouldn’t Mix: Rh and Pregnancy
• What Is the Menstrual Cycle?
• Understanding Intersex
• The Mysterious Case of the Missing Periods
• Summarizing Sex Traits
• Shedding Light on Endometriosis
• Periods: What Should You Expect?
• Menstruation Matters
• Investigating In Vitro Fertilization
• Introducing the IUD
• How Fast Do Embryos Grow?
• Helpful Sex Hormones
• Getting to Know the Germ Layers
• Gender versus Biological Sex: What’s the Difference?
• Gender Identities and Expression
• Focusing on Female Infertility
• Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Pregnancy
• Ectopic Pregnancy: An Unexpected Path
• Creating Chimeras
• Confronting Human Chimerism
• Cells, Frozen in Time
• EvMed Edits
• Stories in Other Languages
• Virtual Reality
• Zoom Gallery
• Ugly Bug Galleries
• Ask a Question
• Top Questions
• Question Guidelines
• Permissions
• Information Collected
• Author and Artist Notes
• Share Ask A Biologist
• Articles & News
• Our Volunteers
• Teacher Toolbox

show/hide words to know

Computer model: a computer program designed to predict what might happen based off of collected data.

Ethical: relating to a person's moral principles.

Morals: a person's beliefs concerning what is right and wrong.

Zoologist: a person who studies animals.

Scientists learn a lot about snakes and other animals through basic research. Image by the Virginia State Park staff.

“Don’t worry, they aren’t dangerous” you hear the zoologist say as she leads you and a group of others toward an area with a number of different snakes. She removes a long snake from a larger glass enclosure and asks who would like to hold it. You take a step back, certain that holding a snake is the last thing you’d like to do.

"But how do you know they aren’t dangerous?” you ask. The zoologist looks up and smiles. She explains that scientists have studied this type of snake, and so we actually know quite a bit about it. This type of snake rarely bites and does not produce venom, so it isn’t dangerous to people. You nod along as she talks about the snakes, their natural habitats, and other details like what they eat.

Animals in the Research Process

How do we know so much about snakes or other animals? Animals are all unique, and scientists study them to learn more about them. For example, by studying snakes we have learned that they stick their tongues out because they are trying to pick up odors around them. This helps them sense food, predators, and other things that may be nearby. When research is performed to expand our understanding of something, like an animal, we call it basic research .

Scientists study animals for other reasons too. What we learn about animals can actually help us find solutions to other problems or to help people. For example, studying snakes helps us understand which ones are venomous so that humans know what kinds of snakes they shouldn't touch. Scientists also study animals to find new treatments to diseases and other ailments that affect both people and animals. If we learn what is in snake venom, we can create a medicine to give to people that have been bitten as a treatment to help them feel better. Using what we know about an animal or thing to help us solve problems or treat disease is called  applied research .

Scientists use many other tools, such as computer models, in addition to animals to study different topics. Image by Andreas Horn.

No matter what type of research is being performed, scientists must consider many things when they study animals.  

Do Scientists Need to Study Animals?

Of course we can learn a lot from using animals for research, but are there alternative options? Sometimes there are. For example, scientists could use some other method, like cells or computer models, to study a particular topic instead of using animals. However, for a number of reasons , scientists have found that using animals is sometimes the best way to study certain topics.

What If Scientists Harm Animals for Research?

Some research using animals only requires scientists to watch behavior or to take a few samples (like blood or saliva) from the animal. These activities may cause the animals some stress, but they are unlikely to harm the animals in any long-term way. Studies of the behavior or physiology of an animal in its natural environment is an example of such research.

In other cases, scientists may need to harm or kill an animal in order to answer a research question. For example, a study could involve removing a brain to study it more closely or giving an animal a treatment without knowing what effects it may have. While the intention is never to purposely harm animals, harm can be necessary to answer a research question.

How Do Scientists Decide When It’s OK to Study Animals?

Many animals are used in research. But there is still debate on whether they should be used for this purpose. Image by the United States Department of Agriculture.

There are  many guidelines  for when it’s ok to use animals in research. Scientists must write a detailed plan of why and how they plan to use animals for a research project. This information is then reviewed by other scientists and members of the public to make sure that the research animals will be used for has an important purpose. Whatever the animals are used for, the scientists also make sure to take care of animal research subjects as best as they can.

Even with rules in place about using animals for research, many people (both scientists and non-scientists) continue to debate whether animals should be used in research. This is an ethical question, or one that depends on a person's morals. Because the way each person feels about both research and animals may be different, there is a range of views on this matter.

• Some people argue that it doesn’t matter that there are rules in place to protect animals. Animals should never be used for research at all, for any reason. 
• Others say we should be able to use animals for any kind of research because moving science forward is more important than the rights or well-being of animals. 
• Lastly, there are people whose opinions sit somewhere in the middle. They might argue that it’s ok to use animals for research, but only in some cases. For example, if the results of the research are very likely to help treat something that affects people, then it may be okay to use animals.

Along with this debate, there are many advantages and disadvantages of doing animal research . Scientists must weigh these options when performing their research.

Additional Images via Wikimedia Commons. White rat image by Alexandroff Pogrebnoj.

Read more about: Using Animals in Research

View citation, bibliographic details:.

• Article: Using Animals in Research
• Author(s): Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross
• Publisher: Arizona State University School of Life Sciences Ask A Biologist
• Site name: ASU - Ask A Biologist
• Date published: December 4, 2016
• Date accessed: May 15, 2024
• Link: https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/Animal-use-in-Research

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. (2016, December 04). Using Animals in Research. ASU - Ask A Biologist. Retrieved May 15, 2024 from https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/Animal-use-in-Research

Chicago Manual of Style

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. "Using Animals in Research". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 04 December, 2016. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/Animal-use-in-Research

MLA 2017 Style

Patrick McGurrin and Christian Ross. "Using Animals in Research". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 04 Dec 2016. ASU - Ask A Biologist, Web. 15 May 2024. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/Animal-use-in-Research

Animals are an important part of research. But many argue about whether it's ethical to use animals to help advance scientific progress.

Using Animals in Research

Be part of ask a biologist.

By volunteering, or simply sending us feedback on the site. Scientists, teachers, writers, illustrators, and translators are all important to the program. If you are interested in helping with the website we have a Volunteers page to get the process started.

Share to Google Classroom

• Academic Departments
• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Faculty Directory
• Offices & Programs
• Patient Care
• Student Resources
• Faculty Resources

Can't find what you're looking for?

• Centers, Institutes & Labs
• Offices & Programs

This is a site-wide search. if you already know what you're looking for, try visiting a section of the site first to see A-Z listings.

Results for " "

Section Menu

Introduction.

Non-human animals are used in medical and other scientific research at academic institutions, hospitals, and in industries such pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. Scientific research on animals helps develop antibiotics and other medications, as well as immunizations and surgical procedures.  Animals are used in the testing of consumer products such as perfumes and shampoos.  Animals are also used to educate students in biology, medicine, and related fields.  We will call all such efforts “animal research.” 

Rats and mice are the main animals used, but also used are birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and other mammals.  In the course of animal research many animals suffer discomfort, fear, and pain, and some animals die.  Of course, many animals in the wild suffer and die also, hence the famous expression:

“nature red in tooth and claw.”

Animal research is morally controversial.  Many scientists just assume that it is morally permissible, but animal rights advocates claim that it is not.

Arguments For Animal Research

Humans use animals for their purposes and do so for the most part without thinking the practice needs moral justification.  People have used and continue to use animals for transportation, farming, recreation, companionship, sport, and food.

Likewise the use of animals in research has occurred largely without researchers thinking they needed to morally justify this practice.  But if a justification is thought to be needed, the main one given by supporters is that such research brings great benefit to humans, enough benefit to outweigh any possible animal suffering or sacrifice involved.

Furthermore, those who support animal research usually hold that most scientific results obtained through animal research are not available in any other way or that the use of animals in research is more effective than other possible methods that might be used to obtain this scientific knowledge.

Here is a sketch of some important claims assumed or given in support of animal research:

• It is morally permissible for humans to use animals, that is, to raise them and keep them for our purposes, to do things with them and to them, and to make things out of them.  For example, we may eat them, use them for clothing, use them for farm work, put them in service as guard animals and guide animals, use them as pets, do research on them, etc.
• Animals have no right to life, no right to live their own lives, and no right not to be used for human purposes.
• Any suffering endured by animals in research contexts is justified by the benefits to humans from such research.
• Computer modeling and other study methods not involving animals would not be able to fully replace the use of animals in research because we would not gain as much knowledge by these other techniques.

In recent years there has been some discussion among ethicists about animal rights and how we should treat animals, and as a result we can add a few modifications or qualifications that those who support animal research usually now will concede:

• Animals may have no right to life, but they deserve some sort of moral consideration that disallows some kinds of treatment of animals.  For example, it would be wrong to torture animals for fun.  If possible, they should be treated humanely and not made to suffer unnecessarily.
• Controls should be in place to protect research animals from unnecessary harm (pain and suffering).

This modern qualified version of support for animal research grants animals some sort of moral consideration or moral status; some animal research advocates may go so far as to allow that animals have some limited moral rights.  Most people grant that it would be wrong to make or allow an animal to suffer or torture an animal just to provide us with amusement or entertainment.  This could be stated in terms of human moral obligations – we have a moral obligation not to torture animals – or in terms of animal rights – animals have the right not to be tortured.  Also, there have been concerns during the last few decades that animals in zoos should be provided with better, more realistic habitats so that they have more of a life.  None of this is taken to preclude scientific research, though it might complicate it, but it is now commonly recognized that steps should be taken by researchers, sometimes at significant cost to the research project, to treat research animals humanely and limit any suffering.

An example of a defender of a more or less traditional view supporting animal research is Carl Cohen.  Cohen thinks that the tremendous benefit to humans from animal research outweighs any possible suffering on their part.  Efforts are and should be made to prevent mistreatment of research animals.  Cohen does not believe it makes sense to speak in terms of animals having moral rights, even limited rights not to be tortured, though Cohen would think it is wrong to torture animals.  Cohen’s view is that to have moral rights, a creature must have the capacity to have their own moral duties or engage in moral reflection or deliberation.  While humans can do this, non-human animals cannot.  Research animals therefore are not part of the moral community and can have no moral rights.

Animal Rights Advocacy

A position against traditional and more modern views supporting animal research is represented by diverse opponents we will group together as “animal rights advocates.”  Animal rights advocates often concede animal research has benefitted humans, though some advocates believe the benefit has been overblown and could have been provided in other ways.  But on their view no benefit from animal research could make such research morally permissible.

A number of distinct views are held by animal rights advocates:

• Animals are not on this earth to be used for human purposes.  They have their own lives.
• Animals have moral rights which are violated by using them for research or killing them for food or clothing.
• Animals used in research are often mistreated, despite the presence of controls meant to prevent this.
• Any human benefits through animal research are outweighed by the suffering of those animals.
• Benefits from animal research are greatly exaggerated: many research results are insignificant or useless (because animals are not like humans, results are often inconclusive) or could have been obtained in other ways.

Utilitarianism and Animals

Probably the most important theoretical perspectives from animal rights advocates come from Peter Singer and Tom Regan.

One tradition in ethics is that when faced with several alternative courses of action, one should choose the course of action that will result in the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number.  Versions of this tradition are called “utilitarianism.” 

One interpretation of utilitarianism interprets the “greatest number” to mean the greatest number of human beings.  A different view of “greatest number,” one represented by Singer, claims we should take into account not just human beings but any creature who can have conscious experience, feel happiness, and experience pain and suffering.  In judging the rightness or wrongness of a practice, everyone’s interests, happiness, pain, and suffering, including those of research animals, need to be taken into account. 

What of the claim that research benefits to humans outweigh any possible suffering of research animals?  According to Singer, the suffering of research animals is on par with that of humans, so for such research to be justified by future benefits, those future benefits would have to be able to justify it if the research were carried out on human infants.  Only if the pain, suffering, and other harm to human infant research subjects were considered justified by future benefits would it be justified to use animals instead of infants.  If one objects that human infants have greater potential than animals, and so should count for more or count in a more significant way, Singer suggests we consider whether we would do such research on brain-damaged infants who have no more intellectual potential than animals.

Singer and those who agree with him are not advocating we test new drugs on normal infants or brain-damaged infants instead of on non-human animals.  They merely want to make us see that we have no real grounds to consider only the interests of humans and treat animal interests, happiness, and suffering as if they don’t really matter.  Singer considers the view that human lives and interests are preferable to animal lives and interests to be a prejudice, a prejudice of “speciesism” that he considers analogous to racism.  Singer thinks we should consider speciesism wrong just as we consider racism wrong.

Singer at times speaks of animals as having rights.  His view that animals have interests and can experience happiness, pain, and suffering is consistent with them having moral rights, but note that, traditionally, utilitarians think of moral rights as akin to “useful fictions” rather than ultimate “metaphysical” possessions of conscious beings.

Regan’s Defense of Animal Rights

For Tom Regan, to say human beings have moral rights to life and liberty means others are not free to harm individuals or ordinarily interfere with their free choices.  Why do humans have moral rights to life and liberty?  Regan thinks it is because humans are subjects whose lives matter to them; a human being is (in his terms) a “subject-of-a-life.” 

But then, Regan notes, nonhuman animals are likewise subjects-of-a-life.  Nonhuman animals are aware of what happens to them and what happens to them matters to them.  Their lives can go “better or worse for them.”  They are subjects, not just objects, and one can say in the case of a nonhuman animal there is “somebody there.”   So, according to Regan, like humans, nonhuman animals have moral rights to life and liberty.

Regan holds that the use of animals in research violates their moral rights.  Subjecting an animal to suffering and death as part of scientific research violates the animal’s rights to life and to live that life in a way meaningful to the animal.  Their rights “trump” any purported justification of animal research as benefitting humans.

Regan is suspicious of the common claim that human benefits justify animal suffering anyway.  No one has ever worked out any kind of intelligible methodology that would enable one to compare benefits to one species with the harm to another species so as to show the former outweighed the latter.  The usual assumption seems to be that the suffering of an animal counts for less than the suffering of a human, but Regan questions this.

Issues in the Dispute

The controversy between the views supporting animal research and the view of animal rights advocates involves disputes about both factual (empirical) and moral issues.  Disputed factual issues include:

• whether scientific results obtained through animal research are significant
• whether the same or similar results could have been obtained through other means, and
• whether effective controls are in place to protect research animals from mistreatment.

Moral issues include:

• the moral status and moral rights, if any, possessed by nonhuman animals, and
• whether research animal suffering is justified in light of the benefits of such research to humans. 

This latter issue has empirical aspects too, because it involves answering factual questions of how much suffering occurs to research animals and how much humans really benefit from animal research.

A thorough discussion of all these issues is too much for this introduction, but the following comments on some of the issues may help you decide on your position on the morality of animal research. 

Factual issues :  It seems beyond argument that the use of animals in medical research has benefitted humans in many ways, for example in developing immunizations for measles and polio, in the development of antibiotics, and in the development of surgical techniques such as organ transplants and joint replacements.  Developed through animal research, vaccines for rabies and distemper have benefitted family pets as well.  It’s hard to imagine all this being done by computer modeling, and in fact much of this was done before computers were commonly available.  But it is worth considering whether, going forward, for some kinds of research more use of testing by means other than on animals might be just as effective.

In the context of research in the United States, controls are in place or being put into place to try to minimize animal suffering.  Whether or not these controls are fully effective and optimal is open to debate.  In this regard research seems to have come a long way from practices of decades ago, but we may need to police current policies better or put in place more stringent ones.

Moral issues :  The moral issue of whether human benefit justifies animal suffering and sacrifice itself has both moral and factual aspects:

• what constitutes human benefit (moral) and how to quantify that (factual)
• how to value the life of a research animal (moral)
• what constitutes animal suffering and sacrifice (moral) and how to quantify that (factual), and
• how to compare benefits and sacrifices across species (moral and factual). 

Regan is correct that the math of any “justification equation” is rarely even discussed, much less spelled out in any noncontroversial fashion.  In other words, there is no clear way to precisely quantify the suffering of research animals and compare this amount to a calculated quantity of human benefit to see if one outweighs the other.

In another respect, some people might seem confused about the issue of justification itself, sometimes assuming no justification is needed and yet at other times thinking animal research is justified by human benefit, as if justification were needed.

Obviously a key moral issue in the dispute is the precise moral status of nonhuman animals.  The moral status of something is whether the thing is a moral agent and/or a moral patient, whether it has moral rights, and if not whether it deserves some other sort of moral consideration.  For most people the sense of moral patiency possessed by such animals is very limited and gives them limited rights.  They may have the right not to be harmed for fun.  (But not everyone who believes this would be comfortable talking of such animals as possessing rights.  They might be more comfortable saying such animals deserve some moral consideration.)

Animal rights advocates of course would be comfortable with the view that animals are full-blown moral patients; Regan claims they have a right to life.  Animal right advocates just disagree here with Cohen that animals are not part of the moral community.  They are not moral agents, but they are moral patients.

Why do some things have a different moral status than do other things?  It might be that we implicitly base the moral status of something on some physical or metaphysical feature of that thing.  So for instance human beings are thought to have moral rights to life and liberty while trees do not because humans are conscious, rational, can express wishes and desires, have their lives matter to them, have an interest in their futures, etc. (physical features in the broad sense -  including mental), while the same cannot be said of trees.  Or human persons have immaterial souls (metaphysical features) while trees do not.  Or animals are considered to be subjects (a metaphysical category), just as humans are.

Regan thinks the moral status of a thing depends on it being the subject of a life, having a future that matters to it.  Regan’s type of view tends to see things as black or white.  If it is the subject of a life, it has the moral right to life, otherwise not.

To be consistent we should grant the same moral status to creatures that are relevantly similar physically or metaphysically, depending on what it is we think that grounds moral status.  Aliens from another planet who acted like human beings in certain essential ways might be given a similar moral status, though they were not human.  However, one could argue that moral status comes in degrees and is not absolute in the way Regan thinks.

Another consideration is whether the moral status of a being could be overridden by other factors.  So, for example, one might claim that nonhuman animals deserve a certain kind of moral treatment but in the case of crucially important research trying to save human lives that status can be overridden.

Carl Cohen and Tom Regan,  The Animal Rights Debate Peter Singer,  Animal Liberation Tom Regan,  Empty Cages

More Centers, Institutes and Labs

• Baker Research Lab
• Becevic Telehealth Lab
• Biomedical Informatics
• Cardiac Cell Physiology Lab
• Center for Education and Development
• Center for Health Ethics
• Center for Health Policy
• Center for Medical Epidemiology and Population Health (CMEPH)
• Center for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
• Center for Precision Medicine
• Child Health Research Institute
• Christopher S. Bond Life Sciences Center
• Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory
• Cosmopolitan International Diabetes Center
• Craniofacial Research Center
• Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center
• Electron Microscopy Core Facility
• Ellis Fischel Cancer Center
• Fay Research Lab
• Functional Assessment Screening Team
• Health Informatics in Diabetes Research (HIDR) Core
• Health Intervention and Treatment Research Lab
• Immunity & Autoimmunity Research Lab
• International Institute of Nano and Molecular Medicine
• Lei Research Lab
• Microcirculation Laboratory
• Missouri Orthopaedic Bioskills Laboratory
• Mizzou OneHealth Biorepository
• Mizzou Sleep Research Lab
• MU Center for Translational Neuroscience
• MU Student Health Center
• MU Surgical Center for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (MUSCORE)
• Narrative Medicine and Health Innovation Lab
• Pulmonary Imaging Research Lab
• Rural Health Research Center
• Shelden Clinical Simulation Center
• Subramanian Research Lab
• Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopment
• Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics

Happenings at MU School of Medicine

Stories that inspire.

Ellis Fischel Cancer Center celebrates 2024 Cancer Research Day

University of Missouri Partnering with State to Address Childhood Immunizations

COVID-19 Virus Could Damage Vision

Local youth explore medicine firsthand at CALEB Science Club

See All News

Columbia, MO 65212 Contact

Emergency Information

Sign up for our monthly newsletter

Copyright © 2023 — Curators of the University of Missouri . All rights reserved. DMCA and other copyright information . Equal Opportunity/Access/Affirmative Action/Pro Disabled & Veteran Employer . For website issues, contact MU Health Care Communications . Contact the MU School of Medicine .

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals., stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals..

Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically.  Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method .

There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research: 

••  Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us!

••  Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

••  With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system.

The ethics of animal experimentation

Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential.

U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted.  Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives.

It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.

Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege.

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of all animals in their care..

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry.  

Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members.  It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted.

Organizations and Resources

There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

What are the benefits of using animals in research? Stanford researchers have made many important human and animal life-saving discoveries through their work. 

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

K-12 Resources By Teachers, For Teachers Provided by the K-12 Teachers Alliance

• Teaching Strategies
• Classroom Activities
• Classroom Management
• Technology in the Classroom
• Professional Development
• Lesson Plans
• Writing Prompts
• Graduate Programs

Should Animals Be Used for Experiments?

• Theme Science
• Grades 9-12

Introduction

Animal rights and the use of them in scientific research is something that has been heavily debated. The students will write a persuasive/argumentative essay regarding whether or not animals should be used for scientific experimentation.

Learning Objectives

• Write arguments with sufficient evidence to support a claim. ( W.11-12.1 )
• Conduct research to answer a question. ( W.11-12.7 )

For the full writing prompt, download the PDF.

Download Full Writing Prompt: Should Animals Be Used for Experiments?

Related Writing Prompts

Natural Disasters

Students research natural disasters and become one in this fun writing prompt

The Future of the Planet

Students research conservation and create a compelling story about saving the Earth.

Students examine and write an essay about the importance of lab safety.

Genetics and DNA are major topics in high school sciences. This prompt poses a difficult question and makes students really think about whether or not they would want to know if they suffered from a genetic disease.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Ethics Hist Med

Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK

Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.

Introduction

Throughout history, animals have been the subject of experimentation to improve our understanding of anatomy and pathology ( 1 ). However, animal testing only became significant in the twentieth century ( 2 ).

Animal experiments are used extensively when developing new medicines and for testing the safety of certain products. Recently, the use of animals for biomedical research has been severely criticized by animal rights and protection groups. Similarly, many nations have established laws to make the practice of animal testing more humane. There are two positions in animal testing. One is that animal testing is acceptable if suffering is minimized and there are human benefits that could not have been achieved using any other means ( 3 ). The second position considers animal testing unacceptable because it causes suffering, and the benefits to human beings are either not proven or could be obtained using other methods.

As such, animal testing is a highly controversial subject that often elicits conflicting emotions from supporters and critics alike. It is also a divisive subject as some people support animal testing only in certain cases and oppose its use in other areas. For example, scientists note that significant medical breakthroughs have only been made possible through drug testing on animals. To them and other like-minded people, such achievements are reason enough to keep using animals in the lab ( 4 ). Animal tests determine if experimental drugs are effective or ineffective on human beings. Eventually, the medicine is tried out on a small group of humans through clinical trials before declaring the medicine safe to use.

Badyal and DesaI ( 5 ) note that these treatments are as beneficial to humans as they are to animals, since some human diseases are found in animals too. Therefore, some who support animal testing only advocate its use for medical (but not cosmetics) purposes, arguing that the advancement in human medicine may lead to advancement in animal medicine.

While a significant population completely disapproves of animal testing, a faction of people only disagrees with the use of animals for cosmetics testing, arguing that it is despicable and cruel to use animal life merely so that humans can advance their beauty technology. The concern extends to animals used for science, and people want animal suffering to be minimized ( 6 ). The discovery of new drugs has for a long time been based on a number of interactions among aspects such as data collected from patients, tissues, organs or cell culture and varied animal species ( 7 ). Those who oppose the use of animal testing for cosmetics believe it is outrageous and cruel to use animal life for the simple reason of making humans look better, and that the benefits to human beings do not validate the harms done to animals ( 7 ).

For such reasons, the use of animals for testing cosmetics products has been banned in the UK and all other member states of the European Union since 2013 ( 8 ). However, other countries like China and the United States of America still continue with the practice ( 9 ). Linzey adds that about 50 - 100 million animals are used for experiments every year, and that over 1.37 million animals were used for drug experimentation in America in the year 2010 ( 9 ). In the meantime, the number of experiments conducted on animals has declined in Britain but is increasing in other countries. While experiments involving vertebrates are regulated in most countries, experiments on invertebrates are not ( 5 ).

The aim of this study is to examine whether or not animal testing is still useful and necessary in the present time, and whether there are ethical differences between animal testing in medical and cosmetics fields. We use the UK as our case study and provide alternatives that can be recommended in place of animal testing.

This review was based on a cross-sectional survey by Clemence and Leaman ( 11 ) that analysed the importance of animal testing from two different aspects: medicine and cosmetics. The population consisted of individuals residing in the UK, and the sample size was 987 (= 0.03). The research included 496 men and 491 women. The report compared public views with the responses from a similar study in 2014 that had 969 participants (477 men and 492 women). The inclusion criteria were based on numerous strata such as gender, social grade definitions (i.e., professionals such as doctors and architects, people with responsible jobs such as professors, middle rank public servants such as nurses and clerics, skilled manual workers, etc.), respondents’ working status (fulltime, part-time, not working), ethnicity (white, non-white), and educational background. This report measured public perception on whether it is ethical to use animal testing for medical or cosmetics purposes. Participants were required to state whether they found it acceptable, mostly unacceptable, unacceptable, or were undecided. Consequently, the same participants were also tasked to indicate whether they saw conducting animal testing for scientific experimentation as completely necessary, somewhat necessary, not very necessary, completely unnecessary, or they did not know.

The study also utilized data from the UK Home Office ( 12 ) to determine which animals were most frequently used for medical and cosmetics research around the world. This report also provided crucial information as to the purposes of animal testing, for instance for medical research, biological testing, regulatory testing, etc.

According to the UK Home Office ( 12 ), in the year 2016, 48.6% of the animal tests in medical research were conducted for genetically oriented studies. Moreover, 28.5% of the medical research involving animal testing was for basic biological research, 13.5% was for regulatory

testing, 8.6% was for translating research from animals to humans, and 0.8% for other trainings. This is summarized in Figure 1 below.

Purposes of Animal Testing in Medicine

Data from the UK Home Office ( 10 ) indicates that the most commonly used animals for medical and cosmetics research are mice and rabbits (72.8%), fish (13.6%), rats (6.3%), birds (3.9%) and other animal species representing 3.4% of the total test animal population, as indicated in Figure 2 below.

Types of Animals Used in Testing

A published report ( 12 ) indicated that 17% of the sampled group viewed animal testing for medical research as ‘mostly unacceptable’ if there were no alternative, 17% as ‘not acceptable’, and 65% as ‘acceptable’. This was in stark contrast with testing for cosmetics purposes, to which an overwhelming 80% of the participants responded as ‘unacceptable’. The summary of the results is provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below.

Animal Testing for Medical Research

Animal Testing for Cosmetics Research

 In the same study ( 12 ), the participants were asked about the necessity of conducting scientific experiments on animals, which 38% of the respondents viewed as ‘completely necessary’, 23% as ‘somewhat necessary’, 20% as ‘not very necessary’, and 16% as ‘completely unnecessary’. The results are summarized in Figure 5 below.

Necessity of Conducting Scientific Experiments on Animals

The application of these methods to evaluate the safety of cosmetics was the most detested as stated by about 80% of the people who were interviewed during the investigation. The sensitivity to human life, on the other hand, reduces the strictness towards utilization of animals to find anti-viruses and antibiotics for various diseases.

The outcome portrays the essentiality of using animals to determine materials that would help the population to live healthily ( 13 ). However, in the past few decades, the number of animals used for testing drugs has been steadily decreasing ( 14 ).

The data indicates that most of the medical research processes involving animal testing emanate from genetically oriented studies, which constitute 48.6% of the medical research animal testing. Experimentation on human genetics presents various legal and ethical challenges to medical and biological researchers, alongside problems in creating experimental procedures using human test subjects. These problems occur partially due to the fact that the experimentation processes involved in these types of studies often lead to extensive gene and physiological damages to the test subjects. Such experiments typically involve deliberate presentation of diseases and other gene modifications to the test subjects, usually requiring the euthanizing of the involved subjects ( 15 ). The animal testing experimentations involving genetic processes include studies in gene modification and examine diseases believed to hold genetic components, such as cancer and diabetes ( 16 ). These experimentation processes typically involve some sort of gene modification that can simulate the presentation of genetically based disorders manifested in human beings to allow researchers to better understand those disorders.

The data also indicate that another major application of animal testing in the medical field is in basic research in biological systems and processes, which accounts for 28.5% of the testing categories. This application of animal testing in medical research involves studies in how biological systems function, and the nature and manner of disease transmission in living organisms. The findings accrued through these kinds of studies translate to advancements in the scientific knowledge of human pathology and present opportunities for the derivation and testing of cures, as noted by Festing and Wilkinson ( 17 ).

The findings further present that regulatory testing (13.5%) and animal to human translation research (8.6%) account for significant portions of the application of animal testing in the medical field. The use of animal testing for regulatory testing purposes involves applying new medical findings, procedures and products to animals to see if they meet the thresholds mandated by the medical regulatory bodies. Translation of research findings from animals to humans involves conducting research into the possibility of animal pathogens becoming infectious to humans, and identifying potential ways of applying non-human physiology to the improvement of human health. Other forms of medical and biological trainings and studies that also engage the use of animals in experimentation in the medical field include elements such as basic physiology and pathogen studies, typically conducted in educational institutions.

Animal testing in the field of cosmetics generally involves the use of animal subjects in testing new cosmetics products and ingredients. The practice essentially involves the application or forced ingestion or injection of these substances to various parts of test animals to examine their toxicity, irritation of the eyes and/or skin, ultraviolet light-triggered toxicity, and their potential for causing unwanted gene mutations ( 18 ).

The use of animal testing in the field of cosmetics research and production presents an unethical viewpoint since the findings do not advance human health, and the practice leads to the torture and killing of animals. The Humane Society ( 18 ) also notes that at the conclusion of the experimentation, the animals are usually killed through methods such as decapitation, neck twisting and asphyxiation, often without pain relief.

With regard to the ethical principles of animal testing in both fields, a convincing argument should first be presented to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This is to justify the need for a researcher to conduct animal studies, and to ensure that the research is conducted using the smallest possible number of animals and with minimal suffering. Additionally, Naderi et al. ( 19 ) noted an increased level of legislation on the matter of animal testing, with researchers being required to submit comprehensive proposals to the IACUC to demonstrate procedural compliance with the guiding principles of the organization before conducting animal tests. Furthermore, Holden ( 20 ) highlighted the fact that researchers need to justify to review and ethics committees the use of mice rather than other alternatives in experiments. These issues indicate that researchers should look for alternatives to animal testing before proceeding with animal trials.

The issue then remains on the nature and availability of alternatives to animal testing in the medical research field. Researchers have undertaken measures to introduce some levels of such alternatives in medical studies. The accrued data indicate that a significant number of people agree with animal testing for medical research, especially when compared to those who agree with animal testing for cosmetics purposes. The data obtained from the studies indicate a slow but perceptible shift in the public opinions regarding animal testing for medical research purposes. People are increasingly finding it unacceptable to use animal test subjects even in medical research. However, the majority of the sampled people believed that medical testing procedures should use animal test subjects, but only when there is no other alternative. This indicates that people view animal testing for medical research as ethical, but under certain conditions.

The use of animals in research is still relevant because the process is useful in veterinary medicine as it helps the students understand the physiology and anatomy and improves surgical skills ( 21 ). The study by Badyal and Desai ( 5 ) supports this perception by highlighting the fact that animal use in laboratory investigation will make new discoveries possible. However, researchers should apply ethical concepts to reduce the amount of pain and unnecessary procedures for the animals. Moreover, animal testing to develop new drugs will continue to protect the future existence of humanity. Cheluvappa, et al. ( 22 ) reiterate that animal experimentation will remain essential to testing future medicine because it helps scientists understand the changes of behaviour, embryology and genetics through dissections that are conducted on the genetically produced animals.

Animals play an important role in testing human drugs as they have a large number of medical reactions similar to those of human beings. Specifically, animals such as dogs, mice and rabbits have an identical DNA that cannot be replicated through artificial models. Public concern for the increasing use of animals in terms of ethics and safety provokes anxiety among the population. Conversely, these uncertainties and unavailability of trustable alternatives show the importance of using animals in medical research as the scientists aim to protect the human race ( 23 ).

However, the use of animals to test cosmetics is highly limited due to the availability of alternative sources. For instance, The Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association (LAVA) claims that the UK government prohibits any individual from using animals to determine the suitability of cosmetics to the human body ( 13 , 24 ). In its circular, The European Union states that they have succeeded in developing alternative measures that cosmetics firms can apply to test their products without using laboratory animals ( 25 ).

Recommendations: Alternatives to Animal Testing

To improve business ethics in cosmetics companies, it is necessary for alternatives to be integrated instead of animals. Companies can employ assessment of scientific barriers to find replacements for animal test subjects and to procure the knowledge of correctly using animals for medical and cosmetics tests. Sophisticated tests on human cells or tissues, computer-modelling techniques, and experiments on people who volunteer are some measures that can limit acts of animal cruelty by cosmetics companies. Companies need to integrate tests that minimize involvement of animals in order to limit the possibility of animal cruelty, and consequently improve their business ethics. Some of the recommended alternatives are listed here.

Computer Simulation

The concept was developed by Denis Noble, and the system is currently enrolled in clinical settings. These simulations are used to test heart replacements, and are also applied to explore human behavior. Various scholars provide that this model is more accurate than animal experiments because it uses human data to analyse diseases and make predictions ( 26 ).

Stem cells are proper alternatives to the in vitro systems of disease testing and toxin evaluations ( 27 ). The experiments involve evaluation of embryonic stem cells that can be grown in Petri dishes. The Petri dishes can be placed in the cells, and after that the resulting components are placed under evaluation to help in the discovery of new medications. Stem cells are essential because they can differentiate into human tissues and make it possible to screen the suspected diseases ( 26 ).

These materials are majorly utilized in the cosmetics industry to minimize the number of animals used to test the level of toxicity in a product. Significantly, investigations showed that human tissues developed in laboratories can be used to assess the allergic responses to the available chemicals ( 28 ). These results can then be analysed by comparing reactions, and a bio signature of genes is used to make appropriate interventions.

Notably, scientists can take high-resolution pictures of human tissues, which are then analyzed with the help of various computer systems. The advantage of this model is characterized by its ability to customize the parts of the organism under consideration. Moreover, 3D images also develop prototype designs and materials that can be used to investigate the existing and future ailments ( 29 ).

This study indicates that it is justifiable to use animals in experimentations only when there are no alternatives, and the tests have significant benefits to humans. Many researchers are working towards finding options that will help eliminate the use of animals for medical and cosmetics tests. The different natures of tests conducted on animals in the fields of medicine and cosmetics tend to have clear negative implications. For such reasons, it is imperative for organizations to develop practices that endorse business ethics. Although animal tests are ideal in establishing whether drugs can be effective in treating humans for various ailments, entities that conduct these tests need to be educated about the gravity of the situation. Animals have been extremely useful in conducting genetic studies and for biological systems investigations. However, a comparison between animal tests in medicine and cosmetics reveals that their benefits in the field of medicine outweigh those in cosmetics. Therefore, animals are essential contributors to scientific experiments that are affiliated with the medical industry. The effects that medical products may have on humans make it ethical to carry out the tests on animals first.

After analysing the arguments of both the supporters and opponents involved in the controversial subject of animal testing, it is difficult to determine which direction is right or wrong. However, the agreement is that animal suffering be minimized at all costs. This research concludes that cosmetics companies should adhere to the established laws and principles against the use and abuse of animals in tests and should seek alternative methods to test their products.

Acknowledgements

Citation to this article:

Kabene S, Baadel S. Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2019; 12: 15.

Conflict of Interests

Authors declare having no conflict of interest.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — Animals Should Not Be a Part of Scientific Research

Animals Should not Be a Part of Scientific Research

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 777 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 777 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Works Cited

• Animal Equality. (2021). Animal Testing. https://animalequality.org/animal-testing/
• Bekoff, M. (2018). The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding Our Compassion Footprint. New World Library.
• Boka, J., & Garber, K. (2020). Ethical Issues in the Use of Animal Models for Tissue Engineering: Reflections on Legal and Regulatory Implications. Animal Experimentation and Ethics, 155-178.
• Chakraborty, S. (2018). Animal Experimentation: A Necessary Evil. Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, 9(1), 1–2.
• Gruen, L. (2011). Ethics and Animals: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
• Lund, K. (2017). Animal Testing and Ethics. In Vitro and Alternative Methods, 53-60.
• PETA. (2021). Animal Testing 101. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/
• Perry, L. (2016). Animal Welfare and Human Values. Routledge.
• Reese, L. A., & Orlans, F. B. (2016). Animal Welfare and Experimental Research. Springer.
• Shanks, N., & Greek, R. (2009). Animal Models in Light of Evolution. CRC Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 642 words

2 pages / 878 words

2 pages / 1002 words

3 pages / 1351 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Testing

Animal testing is a worldwide controversy that is constantly battling between the benefits and drawbacks of using animals for scientific and commercial testing. They have been used for many things like testing make-up products, [...]

The issue of whether animal testing should be banned has sparked intense debate among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and animal rights advocates. This essay aims to analyze the arguments both for and against banning animal [...]

Animal research has long been a contentious issue, with proponents touting its benefits to scientific progress and detractors decrying its ethical implications. This essay explores both sides of the debate and offers a [...]

Animal testing is a controversial topic that has sparked heated debates among scientists, ethicists, and the general public. The ethical implications of using animals in scientific research are complex and multifaceted, with [...]

Balls, M., & Fabre, I. (2019). Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review. European Pharmaceutical Review, 24(6), 29-33.Ekwall, B. (2000). The Multicentre Evaluation of In Vitro Cytotoxicity (MEIC) Programme: A Model for [...]

Since long time ago animals starting from mice to cows have been used for research. There are lots of examples of testing these or that phenomena on animals. But is it correct? Is it what a human should do? And what well-known [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free