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.
Rollin During the s and s, two veterinarians and I conceptualized, drafted, and ultimately, inpersuaded Congress to pass federal legislation assuring some minimal concern on the part of researchers for the welfare of laboratory animals.
The second is that scientists must be agnostic about The morality of medical experimentation on and pain in animals. Our laws for research animals passed, despite very vigorous opposition from the research community, because they accorded well with burgeoning societal concern about the welfare of animals used for social benefit.
In essence, the research community had failed to meet societal expectations for the proper treatment of research animals. Even today, it is doubtful that animal researchers understand the social expectations regarding animal care and use.
Historically, society has not had a robust, institutionalized ethic for how animals should be treated. Before the Animal Welfare Act, the only laws constraining animal use in society were the anticruelty laws forbidding sadistic, deviant, purposeless, deliberate, unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering on animals, or outrageous neglect.
These laws, both by statute and by judicial interpretation, did not apply to socially accepted animal uses such as research or agriculture.
Because the overwhelming use of animals in society was in agriculture, aimed at providing food, fiber, locomotion, and power, and because the key to agricultural success was having healthy animals, good husbandry and good care were enforced by the most powerful sanction, self-interest; the anticruelty laws were only there for society to manage sadists and psychopaths unmoved by self-interest.
As evidence of the need for a new ethic for animals, thousands of bills pertaining to animal welfare have been promulgated across the United States in the last decade. The new ethic for animals essentially applies much of our social ethic for humans, mutatis mutandis, to the treatment of animals and embodies the desired protections in the legal system.
There are three layers of ethical concern regarding invasive research on animals: What entitles humans to use animals in ways that harm, hurt, kill, or distress them in research for human benefit?
We cannot use humans—even socially disvalued human beings such as prisoners, mentally impaired persons, and unwanted children—for the benefit of the majority or of society as a whole without making sure that they understand the research and participate in it willingly.
So what are the arguments for using animals in these ways? The only plausible argument for using human beings in these ways is the utilitarian one that they generate more benefits than costs.
Society has categorically rejected that claim. But perhaps, in the case of animals, such an argument is socially acceptable.
If so, we are led to another ethical concern about the use of animals in scientific experimentation. If the only justification for it is the benefit it provides—and that this benefit far outweighs the cost to the animals—then it follows that the only allowable animal use in experimentation would be that it provides greater benefit than the cost to the animals.
But this is clearly not the current state of affairs.
Animals are deployed in painful ways in myriad experiments that do not provide significant benefit. Given that practitioners of animal research essentially disregard the previous two ethical concerns, we are left with a third.
If researchers fail to attend to the question of our right to use animals in invasive ways and ignore the clear-cut moral demand that the benefits from the research outweigh the costs to the animals, at the very least common sense and common decency dictate that animals used in research should be treated as well as possible.
But even if, as the research community claims, the vast majority of experiments performed on animals do not cause significant pain, percent of research animals suffer because the environments in which they are kept fail to respect their biological and psychological needs and natures.
Cage design is primarily determined by ease of cleaning, not animal comfort. Appallingly, even the death of the animals in the service of research is not the most painless and comfortable death possible. AVMA is ostensibly the arbiter of humaneness of euthanasia, but its track record shows greater concern for human convenience than for animal welfare.
The only reference in the law to the many ways that animals used in research can suffer beyond the infliction of physical pain upon them—including fear, anxiety, separation from family and other animals of the same species, unnatural diets and food acquisition, severely truncated possibility of movement, denial of opportunities for play, disturbance of routine—is the statutory requirement that pain and distress be controlled.
The overwhelming majority of attention paid to ethical issues in category three has been devoted to control of acute physical pain and development of analgesic regimens. Little progress has been made in relieving chronic pain and in the control of any pain in farm animals used in research, since the Animal Welfare Act excludes agricultural animals.
To accomplish this, we must look to Aristotle, the greatest common-sense philosopher of the ancient world, and specifically to his concept of telos, or animal nature, a root notion of his functional, teleological biology.
Aristotle recognized that different animals evidenced different ways of fulfilling the fundamental nature of living things, such as nutrition, locomotion, sensation, cognition, and reproduction. How an animal fulfills these functions is what constitutes its nature. Secondary school biology is still studied in the Aristotelian way.
An example from coyote behavior strikingly illustrates how telos needs can trump even major physical pain. It has been recounted for years that coyotes, caught in a leg-hold trap, will chew their legs off, enduring terrible pain, rather than submit to immobility. This is also true for other animals, such as raccoons.
It is not plausible to suggest that the animal chews its leg off to avoid death, since it is not possible that a nonlinguistic being has a concept of death, though it understands the inability to escape.
Clearly, the animal is not chewing the leg in order to escape the pain, as any attempt to chew the leg off will greatly increase the pain. Novelty of any sort evokes stress in most if not all animal teloi.
Researchers know that animals can be trained by reward to willingly accept some physically painful experimental procedures.Nazi Medical Experimentation: The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments by Baruch C.
Cohen. Medical statistics predict that a transplanted heart could increase the recipient's chances of living by up to 80%. The potential to save the recipient's life is almost guaranteed.
The Morality of Medical Experimentation on Living Human Subjects in the Light of Recent Papal Pronouncements [John Joseph Shinners] on iridis-photo-restoration.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Catholic University Of America, Studies In Author: John Joseph Shinners. The Morality of Medical Experimentation on Prisoners Medicine is one of the most glorified of all sciences for its reputation of saving lives.
Many medical research institutions make use of non-human animals as test subjects. Animals may be subject to experimentation or modified into conditions useful for gaining knowledge about human disease or for testing potential human treatments. Ethics of Medical Research with Animals. Science, Values, and Alternatives Bibliography; Glossary; special report» Utility and Morality: Contemporary Tradeoffs.
The Moral Status of Invasive Animal Research. By Bernard E. Rollin. During the s and s, two we are led to another ethical concern about the use of animals in. Ethical dilemmas in the practice of health care continue to proliferate and receive increasing attention from members of the health care profession, ethicists, policy makers, and the .