Introduction
Science is constantly developing, and new methods of research are being discovered on a daily basis. However, there are still some barbarian approaches used in laboratories that have no right to exist. Many research projects involve the use of animals as experimental material. Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel.
Analysis
The first issue to consider is the ethics of experiments based on animals. No one obtains the creatures’ consent to become the objects of research. Also, they are deprived of freedom and are subjected to pain and suffering (“Cruelty to Animals). When putting experiments on animals, scientists may go further than depriving them of freedom. Frequently, researchers may develop a disease in an animal to try a method of curing it (“Cruelty to Animals”). Another drastic fact about laboratory work is the issue of such animals’ end of life. In his article, Cressey examines the ways of getting rid of laboratory animals (130). The very existence of a variety of such methods sounds abominable. Cressey does mention that there is a need for finding “humane” methods for killing lab animals (130). However, the information presented in his study presupposes that too many animals are killed, and this fact is highly unethical.
The second major argument against using animals in research is that such studies tend to lead to financial losses because they are frequently ineffective. Scholars confess that the rate of positive findings of animal-based experiments is not as high as expected. Therefore, such studies cannot be considered as the most advantageous approach to finding ways of dealing with medical issues. Another proof of this argument is that there are not enough systematic reviews on animal-based studies, which leads to the unnecessary repetition of some experiments (Van Luijk et al. 256). According to Van Luijk et al., systematic reviews could prevent scientists from performing similar studies and thus eliminate the unnecessary pain and harm caused to animals (256). Without resolving the issue of wasted resources, animal-based experiments cannot be regarded as a useful contribution to research.
Probably the only positive thing about using animals in labs is that such experiments may bring benefits for people who suffer from incurable diseases. Due to a number of similarities between human and animal organisms, it is a common belief that the treatment approaches checked on animals will be useful for people. However, research indicates that this opinion is not completely true. Pound and Bracken remark that animal-based experiments have many limitations (g3387). Firstly, such research does not have the appropriate level of quality. Secondly, the validity of these experiments is not sufficient (Pound and Bracken g3387). Thus, it is not possible to justify animal-based research by its merit for humans.
Conclusion
Taking into consideration these arguments, it should be forbidden to use animals in experiments for research purposes. The use of animals is unethical, immoral, and not justified from the point of view of scientific value. The main arguments against animal-based studies are that they cause too much harm to animals and usually do not lead to significant benefits for humans. Thus, scientists should work on the development of less cruel and more efficient methods of research.
Works Cited
Cressey, Daniel. “Best Way to Kill Lab Animals Sought.” Nature, vol. 500, no. 7461, 2013, pp. 130-131.
“Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories.” PETA, n.d., Web.
Pound, Pandora, and Michael B. Bracken. “Is Animal Research Sufficiently Evidence Based to Be a Cornerstone of Biomedical Research?” BMJ, vol. 348, no. may30-1, 2014, pp. g3387-g3387.
Van Luijk, Judith, et al. “Towards Evidence-Based Translational Research: The Pros and Cons of Conducting Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies.” ALTEX-Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, pp. 256-257.