It was interesting to read about the reasons why people would be for animal testing compared to why people are against it. I have decided to use one of these debates as the articles/pages for my publication, it takes about how it is ethically wrong to test on animals, but at the same time why people think that it'd be wrong to test on a human and potentially harm them.
'Whatever benefits animal experimentation is thought to hold in store for us, those very same benefits could be obtained through experimenting on humans instead of animals. Indeed, given that problems exist because scientists must extrapolate from animal models to humans, one might think there are good scientific reasons for preferring human subjects' - Justifying Animal Experimentation: The Starting Point, in Why Animal Experimentation Matters: The Use of Animals in Medical Research,
2001
The lack of ethical self-examination is common and generally involves the denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects. - John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991
The BBC article also talks about a theory based on the three R's; Reduction, Refinement, Replacement. The three Rs are a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals.
Reduction:
- Reducing the number of animals used in experiments by:
- Improving experimental techniques
- Improving techniques of data analysis
- Sharing information with other researchers
Refinement:
- Refining the experiment or the way the animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering by:
- Using less invasive techniques
- Better medical care
- Better living conditions
Replacement:
- Replacing experiments on animals with alternative techniques such as:
- Experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals
- Using computer models
- Studying human volunteers
- Using epidemiological studies
No comments:
Post a Comment