 |
| "Veterinarian" by Norman Rockwell (1952) This artwork may be protected by copyright. It is posted on the site in accordance with fair use principles. Why? |
Imagine that you have been asked to write a policy that will be used to determine how researchers might use living creatures
. Among the factors you may consider in your policy are: the kind of creature (from microorganisms to human beings), the effect of the treatment (the degree of suffering, potential injury, etc.), the value of the research (is it "pure" research or does it have a specific practical purpose, e.g. a potential cure for cancer or a potentially popular lipstick color) and its potential for success.
Where would you draw the line between what is and what is not acceptable? Where would creating lesions on dogs and monkeys in order to study the importance of the occipital lobe fall with respect to your guidelines?
Click here to read a New York Times article, originally published on July 8, 2013, on a campaign to end biomedical experiments on chimpanzees.
I hate the fact that animals do have to suffer because of our research, but in a way, we have to do what we need to in order to protect and help our own race. I have a dog, so I do not like the idea of dogs having to experience pain or harsh treatment for the sake of study at all. I wish I could say that any species of animal that is considered a pet should not be tested on, but people do have rats, rabbits, and smaller creatures such as this. This subject is a very touchy one, and one I never enjoy discussing. In all, I believe that it depends on what is being tested and what kind of information that needs to be found. I would prefer only rats and small animals such as this to be tested on; but if we were desperate for information and had to test on larger animals we hold more dear, if it helped people out in the end, I would understand and would not be offended.
ReplyDeleteChelsi Norris
Animal testing is always a difficult subject because most of us own pets and consider them a part of the family. When I think of animal testing I automatically think of the rats and bunnies that Chelsi mentioned earlier but the reality is one where monkeys and other animals that feel emotion or are more capable of their surroundings on a higher level get tested as well. If the researchers are respectful of the animals that are being tested and no cruelty is being performed I think that makes the studies a lot more acceptable than the alternative.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of all research there is only discovering in the areas that we are unsure of so it is difficult to say if doing brain experiments on dogs or monkeys are worth it or not because we have no idea what the finished product will be yet in terms of helping our race.
-Ashley Huhman
Testing on animals is something that pulls on the heart stings of many. It is something that I don’t like to think about happening to creatures one keeps as a pet especially when commonly there is harm and torture associated with such testing. Just as Chelsi said she was okay with testing on small animals I stand on that same side where testing on small creatures like mice and rats is acceptable but as you get to animals that we as humans share a connection with it becomes unacceptable. Getting animal testing banned is something that I believe will never happen organizations like PETA would love for it to, but it is unrealistic. Scientist test on animals so that humans aren’t injected with harmful chemical is the trial and error part of medicine. When Ashley talked of testing on monkeys and whether or not it is worth it, I think that it is when scientist preform experiments on large animals verse smaller ones it gives them a closer example of what might happen to a human. With this being said I do understand why it is necessary to test on animals (instead of testing on humans which would never be accepted) only when it is hoping to result in a medical advance makeup companies do not need to use animals to make the latest color of eye shadow or anything like that. Scientist also needs to take precautions to make sure that there is as little harm and damage done to the creature as possible. Test need to be done on small animals first before moving on to larger ones so that errors can be fixed before more animals.
ReplyDeleteI think it is agreeable that experiments that pose a risk of harmful side effects need to be carried out on creatures that are not humans. In a way, this sounds harsh. After all, we know that the majority of animals can feel pain and are vital to the circle of life that Earth turns to, so what would make them first on the list of patients to be tested? At the same time, though, I believe we would much rather it be an animal that cannot adopt beliefs and morals than a human being with a far greater view on life.
ReplyDeleteAll of this being said, there is still a line to be drawn as far as what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to using living creatures to carry out research. The line includes all of the factors mentioned in the question above. What it comes down to most, in my opinion, is whether or not the information to be gathered by carrying out the experiments will ultimately be productive or not. If the information being sought after could result in growing our knowledge in any field relevant to life, then it is important that those experiments be carried out, hopefully in the most humane way possible. As unfortunate as it may be to see animals' lives be put at risk for certain researching, the fact that it should help our understanding of certain things in life needs to be respected; as should the animals being used and the views of animal lovers all across the world. In this way, I agree with Chelsi and Ashley.
I would have to draw the line of animal research at cruelty. If it is permanently harmful to the animal then I cannot be the one who says that that research can be performed. I don’t care if it is a rat or a dog that is being tested I hate to inflict needless harm on any sort of creature. As with anything there would be some exceptions to the rules, such as if the harm is minimal or the research completely reversible or if the research is vital such as finding a cure for cancer. If I had to say yes to these types of situations I would prefer that it be done to an older subject. With respect to creating lesions in dogs and monkeys I would have had to say no because that is permanently taking away the sight of another creature with nothing to be gained but casual scientific knowledge. I wouldn’t want my sight stolen from me without a good reason for it.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey Johnson