People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is a foundation that has gained recognition as America’s most successful radical organization, according to Carlton. Co-founder and president Ingrid Newkirk accurately describes PETA as “radical.” The foundation’s mission revolves around achieving total animal liberation from human consumption, which includes abstaining from meat and dairy products and refraining from using animals for medical research. It is important to mention that PETA and other activists opposing animal testing may not realize that they have likely received vaccines and antibiotics themselves for treating infections.
The decision that protesters need to make is whether it is wise to focus on protecting laboratory mice that have a short lifespan or to prioritize the well-being of their loved ones, or even themselves. One notable example is Mary Beth Sweetland, who serves as the vice president of PETA and is a Type I diabetic. She owes her survival to regular insulin injections, which have been made possible through medical testing involving dogs. Animal testing plays a crucial role in advancing medical research and enhancing human life (Murray).
Due to their biological similarity to humans, animals are prone to similar health issues and possess similar metabolisms and genotypes, making them ideal subjects for research. An important consideration arises: is it preferable to test the side effects of a new vaccine on a sample group of 1,000 humans or 1,000 animals? Undeniably, sacrificing an animal’s life for the purpose of advancing medical research is far more admirable than witnessing the suffering and death of thousands or even millions of humans due to easily preventable diseases that could have been avoided through animal testing.
Animal testing, as stated by www. biology-online. org, refers to the utilization of animals in experiments and development projects for evaluating the toxicity, dosing, and effectiveness of test drugs prior to human clinical trials. Nonetheless, there are those who perceive animal testing as unfair and cruel due to animals’ incapacitation to express their viewpoints or voluntarily partake in these procedures. Additionally, numerous individuals contend that animals possess emotions based on their capacity to establish connections with their owners.
Ernst asserts that animals have the capacity to experience pain and express it through vocalizations such as whimpers, moans, and cries, thus indicating their ability to suffer. Additionally, subjecting animals to experiments in unfamiliar environments induces significant stress levels that can result in unreliable outcomes.
Opponents of animal testing primarily voice concerns about its ethical implications and question whether individuals possess the authority to conduct such tests. They also challenge the necessity of these experiments and doubt the dependability of the information acquired from them. Conversely, proponents of animal rights argue against scientists intervening with animals merely because they are capable of doing so.
Derbyshire holds the belief that deaths caused by research are deemed unnecessary and tantamount to murder. Furthermore, animal dissection is regarded as deceitful. According to Alan Goldberg and John Frazier from the John Hopkins Center for the Alternatives to Animal testing (CAAT), animal suffering and mortality, challenges in extrapolating results across species, and excessive time and cost are the main drawbacks of animal testing. However, advocates contend that animals typically receive anesthesia during experiments, thereby undermining these concerns (Murray).
Animal testing incurs additional expenses and mortality due to the cost and care involved, as well as the need for repetitive experiments to ensure accuracy. Detractors claim that inconsistent and unreliable results arise from animals being kept in subpar conditions and experiencing distress. Consequently, those against animal testing advocate for a complete ban on this practice (Galaitsis). Given the contrasting perspectives of the general public and individuals directly engaged in this issue, it is probable that the debate surrounding animal testing will persist indefinitely.
PETA and other opponents of animal testing advocate for a total ban on laboratory animal testing, which may hinder medical progress and the development of vaccines, putting public health at risk. However, until a viable substitute can be found, it is essential to continue with animal testing in order to guarantee the discovery of new treatments and drugs.
Although not all animal testing is beneficial, it is unrealistic to completely ban all forms of animal testing. It is crucial to continue conducting tests on animals until a more efficient substitute can be found. However, it is important to reduce the number of animals used for experimentation until such an alternative becomes available. Despite ethical concerns surrounding animal testing, finding a feasible and practical alternative in the near future is currently challenging. Research efforts are currently underway to explore alternative testing methods, but they are still in the early stages of development.
Many scientists aim to reduce the use of laboratory animals. The three R’s, a famous concept, propose alternatives. These three R’s are: reduction, refinement, and replacement. Refinement refers to decreasing the severity or inhumane procedures animals experience. Replacement involves substituting animals with methods like in-vitro techniques and computer software (www.english.iup.edu). The animal rights movement fails to acknowledge that banning animal testing would lead to different conditions.
Animal testing has been beneficial in multiple ways. For example, by conducting research with mice, it has resulted in the finding of penicillin and other antibiotics’ effectiveness. This approach enables scientists to evaluate antibiotics’ efficiency against particular organisms, measure their toxicity level, and detect any potential side effects. It is crucial to acknowledge that animal testing also aids in enhancing the welfare of animals while benefiting human existence.
PETA opposes medical research that saves lives and targets various medical organizations, such as the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, March of Dimes, and the American Cancer Society. These organizations conduct animal tests to find remedies for birth defects and illnesses. When asked about a potential experiment involving 5,000 rats that could lead to an AIDS cure, Newkirk questions whether one would refuse experiments on their own daughter if it meant saving millions of people. Newkirk argues against granting special rights to humans by asserting that animals like rats, pigs, dogs, and boys are all equal beings.
According to PETA, animals should receive equal protection as humans because there is no ethical distinction between them. PETA’s objective is to promote kindness over violence. In the words of Newkirk: “We are urging children to embrace kindness, not killing” (Carlton). Nevertheless, this belief contradicts their actions as they have euthanized more than 23,000 companion animals from July 1998 to December 2009. PETA argues that euthanasia is a means to end their suffering (Ernst). Instead of killing these animals, they could be utilized for experimentation which has significantly contributed to societal advancements. Therefore, animals should be recognized as heroes who have made various contributions to our modern world rather than being perceived as helpless beings.
Michael Fox, a professor at Queen’s University of Kingston Ontario, holds a dissenting view against animal experimentation. He grounds his theory on the “principle of malfeasance,” which asserts that it is morally incorrect to cause harm to beings that bear no ill intent towards humans. However, this viewpoint goes against prevailing beliefs as humans generally assign a lesser value to animal life compared to human life. For instance, certain experiments can solely be conducted on animals as subjecting humans to potential toxins or other harmful substances would not be ethically permissible.
Animal testing is crucial for certain experiments that cannot be done with humans and require measuring life expectancy. Furthermore, specific tests need multiple samples from a population with similar physical conditions such as weight or genetic make-up. These experiments yield valuable results that impact the well-being of humans greatly. According to O’Donnell, “54 out of 76 Nobel prizes awarded in physiology or medicine since 1901 have been attributed to discoveries and advancements made through animal experimentation.” Therefore, the significance of animal testing is unquestionable.
While there are animal rights activists who argue that animals used in testing endure inappropriate and unacceptable conditions, various organizations such as UNESCO, AALAS, and AAALAC adhere to laboratory regulations to ensure humane testing procedures (Galaitsis).
Supporting animal rights and conducting untested experiments on animals, such as administering drugs, diseases, and vaccines, are incompatible. Regardless of beliefs about animal rights, engaging in activities that harm or control animals implies a distinction between them and humans. To enhance human understanding, more animal research is necessary. Therefore, the term “animal experimentation” should be viewed positively as it contributes to our knowledge of nature and disease.
Works Cited
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” IUP English Department. Apr. 1998. Web. 09 May 2010.
Derbyshire, Stuart. “Animal Experimentation.” Animal Experimentation Is Ethical. (2009). Web. 14 Mar 2010.
Ernst, Stephanie. “PETA’s Euthanasia/Killing Record: Ingrid Newkirk Responds.” Animals Change.org. 30 Mar. 2009. Web. 02 May 2010.
Galaitsis, Alex. “The Oberlin Review Online.” College of Arts and Sciences & Conservatory of Music – Oberlin College. 11 May 2001. Web. 02 May 2010.
Murray, Joseph. “Animals Hold the Key to Saving Human Lives.” Los Angeles Times. 05 Feb 2000 early ed.: 5-6. Print.
O’Donnell, Denise. “PETA Employees Face New Charges.” American Veterinary
