The sections we went over for the week were all very interesting, and it wasn’t really difficult to understand most of the material we went over. I did find Module 1.3 interesting though, probably on a more personal factor since I’m not so sure where I stand on animal research. I’ll just explain what I’m taking from both sides just from what I read out of the text book. Scientist’s (Minimalists) are standing on the notion that such experimentation produces many benefits for humanity and deems it morally acceptable to harm a few animals. They claimed that the pain and suffering animals go through are minimized. They look to the three R's: Reduction, replacement, and refinement given by legal standards.
On the other side the Abolitionists are entirely against animal testing.They built their argument on the fact that testing on a large amount of animals and the level of suffering experienced do not give an ethical justification. I can see why people think animal testing is important, because I am not sure if we would be where we are today had we stepped back in time and never engaged in animal experimentation. I admit we need medications to survive an illness; there is no doubt about that and for that to happen testing needs to be conducted in order for us to make medications and see if they work. However, I am kind of leaning against animal testing but at the same time I'm not. I say this because the animals suffer, and the benefits that are claimed humans will gain are not even proven, and if there are benefits that come with animal testing for human beings it could be produced in other humane ways. Do you not agree?
With this information, I’m not sure I can actually pick a side because neither seems to have a win-win situation. If we continue testing on animals, we are doing an injustice to the animals, because they are the ones that have to suffer and sacrifice themselves for something that might not even work. However, if we get rid of animal testing, then we are doing an injustice to human beings by not coming up with ways to cure diseases that have yet to cure and protect people. Either that happens, or it would take an even longer period of time to actually come up with ways to find a cure or making medications without experimenting on animals. I found a couple of videos and a debate on youtube that kind of went into more detail about the ethics and animal testing that I thought you guys might want to look at.
Time currently: 6:40am
Mood: Tired
Edited on: 9/2/2012 at 8:55pm
Question of the day: If conditions and treatment of animals are improved would you be for animal testing or against animal testing?
