From time immemorial, scientists conducted experiments on animals. For example, in 1880, Louis Pasteur proved the microbial nature of certain diseases by artificially causing anthrax in a sheep. Ivan Pavlov used dogs to study conditioned reflexes in 1890. We know that toxicity tests were mandatory in the twentieth century. And these tests were also carried out on animals. But despite the experiments, there were people who tried to fight for animal rights. And by the beginning of the 21st century, this problem had become urgent. It seems that the world is progressing, but the old ways of testing new products remain. Most products are still animal tested. Many people believe that testing products on animals is inhuman. They believe that no one should test products on animals.

According to statistics, more than 150 million experimental animals die annually around the world. 65% of animals are used in medical research, 26% are for basic research and experiments, 8% of animals die during tests on the toxicity of drugs and cosmetics and 1% of animals die in student experiments. Does it make sense to test new medicines or cosmetics on animals; if it has long been proven that it is dangerous for us. Because of the anatomical and physical differences between humans and animals, testing the new methods of treatment on animals is ineffective and even dangerous. For example, from scientific observation it is know that aspirin is poisonous to cats and penicillin is highly toxic to guinea pigs. Asbestos has not had a harmful effect on animals, although it causes cancer in humans. The dosage of the drug isoproterenol for the treatment of asthma was verified on animals. But 3,500 asthmatics died in the UK as a result of an overdose of medication. The above examples tell us that what is suitable for animals does not necessarily suit people. Because of this difference in physiology, the drugs tested on animals can kill both us and them.

Experiments on animals require a huge financial cost. At the same time, this money could be successfully spent on an advertising campaign for a healthy lifestyle. The need to take medicine would be reduced to a minimum. And the statistics are the proof of that. According to this, people in the whole world have created a number of centers to develop alternatives to animal experiments. G.P. Chervonskaya (virologist, a member of the bioethics committee at the Russian Academy of Sciences) considers that 75% of animal experiments today could successfully be replaced by cell cultures. She says, “These methods are effective, accurate and require less financial expenditures. Moreover, the alternatives reveal the toxicity of the tested drugs at a deeper level — both cellular and sometimes subcellular”.  This example shows that many scientists are already spending money not on "killing animals" for their own research, but on the alternative and more humane methods of testing new products.

The last but not the least reason is that any animal experiments are not ethical.  People do not respect animal rights and therefore it is unacceptable for people to carry experiments or test products and cosmetics on animals. The philosopher Tom Regan believes that animals are “subjects of life” and have moral rights, and their lives are priceless.  There are the following historical facts in defense of animal rights. The governments of the Netherlands and New Zealand have banned the use of monkeys in the experiments that cause suffering. A number of medical schools in China, Japan and South Korea erect tombstones (cenotaphs) in the memory of dead animals. Anniversaries are annually held in Japan for animals killed in medical institutions. In 1822, the British Parliament passed the first animal protection law. And in 1876 the first law on animal testing was created. These examples prove to us that in some countries measures have already been taken to protect the rights of animals. This means that such measures can be achieved throughout the world.

However, there is an opposing viewpoint. Some proponents of this view think that science would not have come so far, if scientists had not tested the products on animals. They argue, if not for experiments on dogs, for example, people would never have received insulin. And antibiotics against leprosy would not have been created, if scientists had not conducted experiments on such an animal as an armadillo. Therefore, they believe that animal experiments should continue.

I cannot agree with this point of view. Of course, such discoveries would not have existed then, but at the moment there are many alternative solutions for finding and testing new products, cosmetics or drugs. There is an alternative approach called naturopathy. It eliminates the need to test an endless chain of drugs that destroy the body's defenses and offers its own approach to human health. This alternative is aimed at preventing diseases and normalizing metabolic substances. Another alternative is homeopathy, which trains the human immune system. Also, most cosmetic brands have stopped testing their products on animals. There are more alternatives to using and testing drugs and cosmetics in the world, so I think there is no need to continue to do animal testing.

We can conclude that people should stop abusing animals in this way because it is not humane to behave with them as with toys, our physiology is different than the one of an animal, and it does not mean that what is suitable for animals is suitable for us. People spend so much money testing products on animals when there are a lot of alternatives, allowing us to reduce our time and use minimum budget. People have long been able to reduce their need to use animals without harming their health and well-being. We can solve this problem in different ways. For example, our government may issue a law "on the habitual treatment of animals." Or we can create or finance more research institutes where scientists will look for alternative solutions to testing and experimentation. And animals that are still being tested need to provide a high-quality treatment. Each of us must realize this problem and find a humane way to solve it.

Views: 61


You need to be a member of Global Ethics Network to add comments!

Join Global Ethics Network

Carnegie Council

Global Ethics Weekly: Foreign Policy & the 2020 Democratic Candidates, with Nikolas Gvosdev

Will Joe Biden's "restorationist" foreign policy resonate with voters? What would a "progressive" approach to international relations look like for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? What role will foreign policy play in the 2020 Election? Senior Fellow Nikolas Gvosdev looks at these questions and more as he and host Alex Woodson discuss a crowded 2020 Democratic primary field.

The Crack-Up: A Hundred Years of Student Protests in China, with Jeffrey Wasserstrom

In the latest "Crack-Up" podcast, China expert Jeffrey Wasserstrom discusses the rich history of Chinese student protests. From the May Fourth movement in 1919 to Tiananmen Square in 1989 to today's mass demonstrations in Hong Kong, what are the threads that tie these moments together? Don't miss this fascinating talk, which also touches on Woodrow Wilson, the Russian Revolution, and a young Mao Zedong.

Speech Police: The Global Struggle to Govern the Internet, with David Kaye

The original idea of the Internet was for it be a "free speech nirvana," but in 2019, the reality is quite different. Authoritarians spread disinformation and extremists incite hatred, often on the huge, U.S.-based platforms, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. David Kaye, UN special rapporteur on freedom of opinion & expression, details the different approaches to these issues in Europe and the United States and looks for solutions in this informed and important talk.





© 2019   Created by Carnegie Council.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

The views and opinions expressed in the media, comments, or publications on this website are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by Carnegie Council.