Animal experimentation for biomedical research has been a critical strategy employed by scientists in developing ways to treat human illnesses. Despite being useful for ages, the controversy surrounding its scientific validity and ethicality has emerged. The proponents of the idea believe that it is necessary to use animals in research for human benefits. On the contrary, the critics perceive the concept as ethically wrong and scientifically invalid. With the controversy notwithstanding, animal research is inappropriate due to ethical concerns and numerous scientific limitations.
Supporters of animal experimentation view it as the most appropriate method of protecting humans. Animal research has been crucial in treating human conditions (Smith 2). Although the proponents of the concept agree that no one enjoys the idea of using animals, the researchers have no better alternative since living organisms must be used to test drugs. Hence, if the drugs are not tested on animals, they have to be tested on human beings. Unfortunately, trying drugs on human beings is dangerous as the medication can have atrocious effects. Animal experimentation has contributed to the discovery of numerous treatments useful in curing human diseases (Smith). Therefore, its prohibition can cause more harm to humans than benefits to animals.
Using animals for biomedical experimentation is ethically wrong since it takes a substantial toll on animal life. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), animals have all the right not to be exploited for scientific purposes (Engdahl 2). Even though biomedical researchers always attempt to reduce distress and pain for animals in the laboratories, animals experience suffering anyway. Mostly, experimental animals face isolation, introduced illnesses, sterilization, and mercy killing after the study. As much as the intentions of most scientists are valid, the majority treat research animals in the laboratory as objects, things, and machines essential for generating data (Engdahl 3).
Ideally, the use of animals in research is a concept of choosing between animals and humans, which is ethically unacceptable. Animals and human beings are distinct entities deserving respect for individual rights.
Animal experimentation hurts living organisms for no valid reason. The reliability and validity of scientific research on animals are questionable. AAVS claims that data collected from animal experimentation do not predict human results (Engdahl 2). The challenge overlooked by biomedical researchers using animals is the disparity between species. Humans and animals differ metabolically, physiologically, and anatomically. Hence, the results from animal research cannot replicate perfectly inhuman conditions.
Usually, even the most promising outcome of animal experimentation fails when applied to humans. As a result, a lot of money is lost in conducting studies, which could have otherwise been used for noble causes. Again, the time, effort, and intelligence utilized in animal research could be used in innovating other non-animal alternative projects (Engdahl 2). Thus, using novel animals has numerous scientific limitations.
In short, the use of animals in biomedical research is inappropriate. Although the supporters of animal use in research embrace the idea as key to treating human conditions, it is ethically wrong and has numerous scientific faults. It causes distress, pain, and suffering to animals when isolated, caged, sterilized, or injected with diseases. Substantial drugs acquired from animal research usually fail when tested on humans. Therefore, the use of animals for research hurt the animals, wastes funds and efforts, and delays the discovery of better ways of treatment.
Engdahl, Sylvia, editor. “Results from Research on Animals Are Not Valid When Applied to Humans.” aavs. 2015. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Web.
Smith, Wesley J. “The Grim Good of Animal Research.” firstthings. edited by Sylvia Engdahl. 2013. Gale in Context: Opposing Viewpoints. Web.