Ethics of animal research

Drug C killed all the mice and rats. Oxford University Press Online resources Ethics Pro-Test looks at the question of whether animals have rights, concluding that their lack of understanding does not allow them to participate in the system of rights and duties. Under this view, the ways in which experimentation might harm the animal are less morally significant than the potential human benefits from the research.

This involves detailed examination of the particular procedures and experiments, and the numbers and types of animal used. Received Nov 14; Accepted Mar The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own goals.

In principle, it should be possible to use this method in humans and therefore to reduce the number of animals needed to study new compounds; however, it too has limitations. In 34 out of 38 cases, they found against the anti-vivisectionist groups, either supporting complaints about anti-vivisectionist literature, or rejecting the complaints by anti-vivisectionists about the literature from medical organizations.

John P Gluck has suggested that this is often lacking: They can feel pain and experience pleasure. See if you have enough points for this item. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. But these are two conceptually different things. In respect to his capacity, many animals are no different than humans.

Such an approach would ignore the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee report, and would not deal with public concerns about animal welfare. The book's careful blending of theoretical and practical considerations and its balanced arguments make it valuable for instructors as well as for scholars and practitioners.

However, the details of standard ethical arguments and counterarguments for AR are not often publically discussed, and it is likely that most people are not aware of the details of the debate.

Science, Values, and Alternatives

Animal experiments and drug safety Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that.

It is a useful book covering many issues of animal rights activism and philosophy. Although it looks at the whole issue, it pays particular attention to the ethics, specifically in chapter three. The benefits of animal research have been enormous and it would have severe consequences for public health and medical research if it were abandoned Matching the number of animals generated from breeding programmes to the number of animals required for research has also helped to reduce the number of surplus animals.

Roughly speaking, this is a group of individuals who all share certain traits in common.

The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research

The scientific community has often been the driving force for these improvements, arguing that better conditions for animals was conducive to better, more replicable, scientific results.

Moreover, a great deal of animal experimentation has been misleading and resulted in either withholding of drugs, sometimes for years, that were subsequently found to be highly beneficial to humans, or to the release and use of drugs that, though harmless to animals, have actually contributed to human suffering and death.

The Case for Animal Rights Tom Reagan is another major piece of philosophical writing which argues for animal rights on the basis of their similar cognitive abilities. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Through 16 case studies, and plenty of ethical theory, the authors attempt to navigate the moral minefields involved.

Websites The ethics of animal research Animal use has been a hotly contested moral issue for hundreds of years. In the animal experiment context, if the experiment takes place, the experimenter will carry out actions that harm the animals involved.

The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America

Drug A killed all the rats, mice and dogs. Alison Hills is an objective assessment of the case for whether animals should have rights and what rights those should be. Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans have only a limited obligation towards them; on this argument, we certainly would not need to grant animals all normal human rights.

Many found the counterarguments convincing, including those who initially responded that the argument was enough to justify AR. Books Animal Liberation Peter Singer was an immensely influential book which discussed the ethics of animal use including animal research.

This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal. The proposals have three aims: To the undecided and non-prejudiced the answer is, of course, obvious.

In conclusion, RDS considers that the use of animals in research can be ethically and morally justified. In fact, some of them the infants will surely meet all of the criteria in the future.

Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their results are valid and can be applied to human beings. In summary, defenders of animal experimentation argue that humans have higher moral status than animals and fundamental rights that animals lack.

This means reducing pain and suffering as much as possible. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol.

IB Psychology

The ultimate aim of the NC3Rs is to substitute a significant proportion of animal research by investigating the development of alternative techniques, such as human studies, and in vitro and in silico studies.

Accordingly, potential animal rights violations are outweighed by the greater human benefits of animal research. Mar 29,  · The ethics of animal research: a survey of the public and scientists in North America Ari R.

Joffe, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton, and Nathan Nobis Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children’s Hospital, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada. The ethics of animal research.

Experimenting on animals

Animal use has been a hotly contested moral issue for hundreds of years. In the 17th century René Descartes, a French philosopher, argued that animals were no more than automata and could not feel pain. The ethics of animal research.

Animal use has been a hotly contested moral issue for hundreds of years. In the 17th century René Descartes, a French philosopher, argued that animals were no more than automata and could not feel pain. The ethics of animal research.

Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research It is an unrealistic hope—and a false claim—that microdosing can completely replace the use of animals in scientific research; “animal studies will still be required,” confirmed the Fund for the Replacement of () The Ethics of Research.

Dec 08,  · John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, Gluck offers this advice for people who may need to experiment on animals: The use of animals in research should evolve out. research involving animals in the light of these developments, the implications for regulation, and the provision of information and education.

Experimenting on animals

As Chair of the Working Group, I would like to record my thanks to all members, who have.

Ethics of animal research
Rated 5/5 based on 80 review
The Ethics of Animal Experimentation - HOPES Huntington's Disease Information