Introduction
The use of animals in biomedical research has a long history alongside the ongoing debates regarding the ethics of experimentation on animals. With the increasing popularity of domestic pets, the moral consensus surrounding the use of animals in biomedical studies has become less clear. While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern and humane non-animal research methods that have become faster, cheaper, and more accurate, thus making animal testing obsolete.
The discussion about the preservation of the environment and natural resources goes hand-in-hand with the issue of animal use in biomedical research since both of them are associated with “destroying” something that was not created by humans in the first place, making either pro or against arguments even more complex. Despite the fact that the majority of anti-environmentalists argue that nature is just a resource for living, the discoveries made by modern scientists suggest that the abuse of natural resources will be worth a lot in the future.
In this paper, I will argue against the usage of animals in biomedical research as well as to oppose the devastation of natural resources for the sake of industrialization and globalization. The paper will be divided into the following sections: the elaboration on the thesis statement (animal testing is obsolete, and there are consequences of destroying the environment), the presentation of the counter-arguments for the thesis (progress is impossible without animal testing and the usage of natural resources), and making conclusions by forming an objection to the counter-arguments.
Animal Testing is Obsolete
For many, the opposition of animal testing in biomedical research has become synonymous with common sense (LaFollette, 2014) because of the availability of alternatives that could potentially be more reliable. For example, the newly developed Vitro testing (Harvard’s Wyss Institute) allowed researchers to use “organs-on-chips” with human cells for mimicking the function and the responses of human systems of organs. The chips have been shown to be more effective in replicating human diseases, responses to drugs, and physiology compared to animal experiments. Currently, companies are working on turning the “organs-on-chips” into accessible products that scientists can use in their research thus making animal testing unnecessary and obsolete.
Despite the fact that the proponents of animal testing in biomedical research may argue that animals do not have the same moral rights as humans and thus should not be excluded from experiments, it is important to note that the relationships between animals and humans have dramatically evolved. With animals becoming members of millions of families across the globe, it is becoming more and more difficult to agree with the viewpoint that animal testing can bring more benefits than harm (Hajar, 2011). Furthermore, there is a certain level of moral responsibility that lies on the shoulders of humans to protect species that cannot protect themselves. From the efforts to increase the population of giant pandas to the prevention of oil spills in the places of penguin inhabitance, humans are responsible for protecting those that suffer from the devastating effects of globalization.
Progress Has Its Price
The preservation of natural resources and environmental sustainability ties in with the protection of animals against human-made threats. Environmentalists may argue that those who continuously contribute to the destruction of nature and the devastation of resources do not value their place in the universe and lack the perspective of looking at themselves as parts of nature (Sandler, 2014) rather than its mere users. This idea is associated with the fact that too many people possess enough knowledge about the negative impact of their activities as well as the implications of the destruction of nature but brush it off with the thought that someone else would do everything for them. Lack of appreciation for one’s place in the natural environment dies not simply mean that a human being should be intellectually appreciative (Sandler, 2014); rather, the appreciation should be reflected in one’s attitude towards nature and the respect for the abundance of resources it provides to humans.
With air pollution indicators in large cities exceeding the norm and with sea level being the highest it has ever been, the argument supporting the exhaustion of the environment for the sake of human progress becomes invalid. What so many anti-environmentalists fail to take into consideration is that there would be a time when the planet’s citizens will encounter human-caused natural disasters so severe, that no money on the planet will be enough to restore the damage. While the Earth provides so many people with resources for life, there is no “giving back” on the part of humans to minimize the impact of resource devastation.
Animal Testing is Necessary
To oppose the view that experiments on animals are unethical and obsolete in this day and age, some scientists argued that the animal rights movement which opposes the usage of animals in biomedical research presents a threat to continuous discovery and the development of new medication, treatments, and prevention practices for a broad range of conditions and illnesses. The argument for the use of animals in research stands on the idea that animals have no rights (Cohen, 2014). In this context, the concept of right refers to a claim that a party exercises against another, making them intelligibly defendable among beings that can make moral claims against one another. Animals do not have such ability nor do they have enough capacity for independent moral judgment; thus, they have no right to exercise against humans. While humans owe a degree of proper regard to other humans, they cannot have the same attitude towards other species that do not have the same level of moral autonomy (Cohen, 2014). Although this argument may be classified as “speciesist” (Cohen, 2014), the proponents of animal testing in biomedical research state that it is necessary to be a speciesist to make morally relevant distinctions between animals and human beings.
Despite the fact that the opponents of animal testing contend that the benefits for human beings rarely justify the harm caused to animals (Hajar, 2011), it is important to remember that no biomedical research without the use of animals was successful and innovative enough to get awarded a Noble Prize. The crucial role of animals in research can be illustrated by the example of Dr. Thomas Starzl (2012) who pioneered kidney and liver transplants. By using dogs in his studies, he managed to figure out the patterns of his techniques that allowed some animals to survive operations, leading to the last group of subjects to survive completely (Starzl, 2012). Most notably, the last group was made up of human babies. Had he not tested on dogs, Starzl could have been responsible for the deaths of children. Yet the animal rights activists claim that animal testing is unethical.
Individualism Beats Environmentalism
Many anti-environmentalists may argue that nature exists for the sake of being used and enjoyed by humans who constitute the pinnacle of development. To counter the position held by many nature activists and idealists, the proponents of the individualistic view on the usage of natural resources state that any limitations would impede the further development of the humankind. While today not many can argue against the importance of preservation of nature and its resources, there is a view that environmentalism does not take into account the legacy of individualism that lies in the requirements and principles of human life on earth. Despite the fact that environmentalism has been falsely accused of being junk science, it rather rests on junk philosophy that lacks the understanding of the moral value of human life and well-being.
Overcoming self-importance and individualism can be challenged by the idea that there may be other ways of developing humility and respect for nature (Schmidtz, 2014). It is important to note that an anti-environmentalist may value and enjoy nature in the same way as everybody else; however, he or she does not see any connections to preserving it independently from human enjoyment (Schmidtz, 2014). From the perspective of logic, anti-environmentalists take into consideration the benefits and costs of preserving natural resources, like, for example, maintaining a park or planting a garden. Environmentalists, on the other hand, rarely make a cost-benefit analysis arguing that no money is worth the destruction of nature, which is a point that lacks a logical perspective and is too idealistic.
Conclusions
The ethical discussion about animal testing in biomedical research rested on two arguments: technologies made animal usage obsolete and no progress is possible without animal testing. Nevertheless, with the current state of technologies and the development of fresh and innovative perspectives on biomedical research, the public may soon witness a Nobel Prize given to scientists that did not resort to animal testing. Reliability and cost-effectiveness cannot be fully associated with animal testing (LaFollette, 2014) since there are differences in the way human and animal organisms respond to diseases and their treatments. While there could be some exceptions to the rule, in the majority of instances, animal testing can be substituted for other methods of experimentation in biomedical research, as shown by the example of “organs-on-chips” developed at Harvard’s Wyss Institute.
With regards to the exhaustion of natural resources and the preservation of the environment, there is some logic in the cost-benefit analysis of maintaining environmental sustainability; however, if humans choose to withhold from paying for it today, it is possible that no money could save the nature in the future. The individualistic views that focus on the wellbeing of humans rarely take into account the consequences of progress and development with regards to how the environment could transform. Therefore, while the comfortable life of human beings on this planet is important, there should be some boundaries set on the extent to which we all can “enjoy” the resources provided by nature.
References
Cohen, C. (2014). The case for the use of animals in biomedical research. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 198-203). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views, 12(1), 42.
LaFollette, H. (2014). Why Cohen is mistaken. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 204-214). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Sandler, R. (2014). The value of nature. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 594-601). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Schmidtz, D. (2014). A place for cost-benefit analysis. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), Ethics in practice: An anthology (pp. 602-610). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Starzl, T. (2012). The long reach of liver transplantation. Nature Medicine, 18(10), 19-22.