We have 4 possible new drugs to cure HIV. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. The general moral character of the experimenter is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ethical approach of the experimenter to each experiment. So the acts and omissions argument could lead us to say that it is morally worse for the experimenter to harm the animals by experimenting on them than it is to potentially harm some human beings by not doing an experiment that might find a cure for their disease.
Other approaches Other approaches to animal experiments One writer suggests that we can cut out a lot of philosophising about animal experiments by using this test: Ethical arithmetic Animal experiments and ethical arithmetic The consequentialist justification of animal experimentation can be demonstrated by comparing the moral consequences of doing or not doing an experiment.
The harm that will result from not doing the experiment is the result of multiplying three things together: The lack of ethical self-examination is common and generally involves the denial or avoidance of animal suffering, resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degradation of their research subjects.
Drug B killed all the dogs and rats. That is true, which is why Drug D would be given as a single, very small dose to human volunteers under tightly controlled and regulated conditions. Most ethicists think that we have a greater moral responsibility for the things we do than for the things we fail to do; i.
Justifying animal experiments Those in favour of animal experiments say that the good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals. Proposed EU directive Proposed EU directive In November the European Union put forward proposals to revise the directive for the protection of animals used in scientific experiments in line with the three R principle of replacing, reducing and refining the use of animals in experiments.
Are animal experiments useful? Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings. To the undecided and non-prejudiced the answer is, of course, obvious.
This is a consequentialist argument, because it looks at the consequences of the actions under consideration. And another philosopher suggests that it would anyway be more effective to research on normal human beings: John P Gluck has suggested that this is often lacking: And so if we want to continue with the arithmetic that we started in the section above, we need to put an additional, and different, factor on each side of the equation to deal with the different moral values of acts and omissions.
The main changes proposed are: If the experiment does not take place the experimenter will not do anything.
Animal experiments only benefit human beings if their results are valid and can be applied to human beings.
The Use of Animals in Medical Research, If those human subjects were normal and able to give free and informed consent to the experiment then this might not be morally objectionable.
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.Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Non-animal alternatives are also typically much more cost-effective than tests that use animals. What are the alternatives to animal testing?
There are already many products on the market that are made using thousands of ingredients that. Animal Data Is Not Reliable for Human Health Research (Op-Ed) By found that 92 percent of drugs entering clinical trials following animal testing fail.
Frequently Asked Questions About Animal Testing Isn’t testing on animals necessary to protect people from dangerous chemicals? If animal tests are ineffective and unnecessary, why do scientists still do them?
A Toy 1/11/12 Animal Testing Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. It is estimated that 50 to million animals worldwide are used yearly. Dec 08, · Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings.
If a drug passes the animal test it's then tested on a small human group before.Download