Bioethics in Animal Research

I was just curious, and wanted to know your opinions on animal welfare in the instance of medical and biological research. I don't know how many people will actually respond to this thread, but this is a personal interest of mine and I wanted to see if there were any others out there similar to me in mindset. I'll post my opinion when (or if) the debate starts to get rolling. Thanks! x

 

i like humans better than animals so im for it

 

Well, humans are animals. Why do you prefer humans?

 

i like humans better than animals i dont see humans as animals cuz we are mega smart and better than animals

 

Well, we are mammals. We are more self-aware, but not necessarily dominant. I believe that we are one of the most intelligent species that walk the earth, but in that we have completely destroyed our environment, and our actions mostly derive from impulse. We're very selfish creatures, and don't really tend to think more than we have to. (That is a broad generalization of the species, definitely not all humans are that way.)

 

As a good friend of mine once said: « We must all make sacrifices in the name of science ».
(Overwatch nerds will recognize this quote)

 

The use of animals in research is fine depending on the value of the research, how much harm is done to the animals tested, and whether computerized models could be used in place of animals, in my opinion. On one side, animal research has led to vaccinations for debilitating diseases such as polio, rubella, and smallpox, as well as treatments for other disorders such as HIV and cancer, of which we could never have achieved without animal research without potential human sacrifice. These are all valuable research topics. However, if animals are being used to study something trivial just for the sake of knowledge instead of a great benefit to humans, like the effects of PTSD on eating behaviors in mice, I wouldn't support that kind of animal research. On the other hand, animals are subjected to internal damage and injections that may potentially poison them.

Honestly, I think the solution here is to invest in more computerized models and limit our animal research to important matters, instead of using animals for all kinds of research.

 

Animals are worth no moral consideration. We don't have to concern ourselves with non-human suffering In the least.

 

sacrifice riri for anime

 

I agree with you in the fact that we should limit our animal research to important matters, but I feel we should be limiting our array of test subjects to consenting human beings. Most non-human animals aren't self-aware, meaning that it's impossible for them to have subjective morals. With a lack of understanding of what is being done to oneself, it's absolutely inhumane to torture innocent creatures for the sake of scientific benefits when we have lots of other resources. I know that in the past, non-human animals have been our only resource for scientific advancement, and that is completely fine. But now that they aren't our only resource, I don't see why we can't utilize the others. While I don't believe that animal testing is wrong, I do think it's inhumane. The reason I don't believe that it is wrong, or anything is wrong for that matter, is because morals are subjective. Subjectively, I believe it's wrong, but factually, it really isn't. I'm seeing it from the point of view of the subject. I think it's incredibly sick to view non-human animals as objects that we have free will to use. Humans are not of superior nature, and that is fact. Because we are so self-aware, we have "made" ourselves superior; establishing the concepts of culture, religion, government, etc. In reality, we are all the same; we're all just animals who share the same planet.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 25, 2018, Original Post Date: Feb 25, 2018 ---

Why would you believe such a thing?

 

exactly. Why worry about them when we can barely handle ourselves?

 

1) I have to think this if I want to remain logically consistent and eat meat. I subsidize animals being killed for my own enjoyment, how can I care about animals being killed for scientific progress?
2) Applying the same standard I use for humans I conclude animals aren't too be valued: I believe rights are based on a a norm of reciprocity, I have rights because I respect your rights, you have rights because you respect mine. If a human were too infringe on my rights I no longer need to recognize their rights and I would be fine morally speaking with killing and eating them. Because an animal cannot possibly reciprocate values with me that animal does not warrant me respecting it's rights.

(Sorry for any typos, I'm on my phone so autocorrect and a small keyboard are at work )

 

I totally agree with number one, though number two sounded very extreme lol

 

Obviously their are practical reasons why we can't allow people to murder and eat criminals, these concerns are detached from the criminals retaining moral value.

 

I consider testing treatments on animals falls under “necessary evil”. As long as we aren’t abusing it beyond necessary functionality, I believe it is alright; but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. Hurting animals is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary. If testing on 100 animals means curing cancer, then I’m in support of it because of necessity

 

With this position I take it you are a vegan who doesn't partake in the imprisonment, rape, and murder of animals by the industrial farming industry.

 

I voted other. Purely for the fact I'm torn between sides. For small insignificant things for knowledge without any reason, No, With something that could save many lives , like a cure for cancer yes. As @Its_Madison has said,

A prime example would be Albert Szent-Györgyi. When in 1917i n the midst of World War One young Hungarian soldier (Albert Szent-Györgyi) wanted to get to the university of Budapest so badly said ' I was overcome with such a mad desire to return to science that one day I grabbed my revolver and through despair put a shot through my upper arm.' He finished his MD later that year without a clue that a guinea pig would lead him to a noble prize. While studying a deficiency disorder called BeriBeri (nutritional disorder caused by of deficiency thiamin (vitamin B1) researchers Axel Holst and Theodor Frølich switched out their pigeon test subjects for a mammell. They faithfully chose the non vitamin c producing guinea pig, which dies of scurvy like symptoms when fed a strict diet of grain. For the first time an animal was observed with scurvy. They honed their experiments, and by 1932 Szent-Györgyi had isolated ascorbic acid (Vitamin C ) Prior to the discovery of xrays, the electron, radioactivity and relativity, scientific learning was largely limited to our senses. 'You can see a hungry lion, you can't see it's electrons. You can see rotten fruit, you can't see if it has vitamin C'. The constraints of medical reasoning of the era prevented James Lind from saving millions of lives. His knowledge was imprisoned by the Zeitgeist (the german word representing the common ideals and beliefs of a certain time or period. In his 1970's book 'The crazy Ape' Albert Szent-Györgyi described the Zeitgeist as a cage. He said 'The freedom of human thought is very limited, we all live in a very narrow cage, the spirit of our times. In which we have a very limited freedom of motion. If in different ages where people would have thought differently, this was not because the cage got wider, but because the cage moved. By discovering ascorbic acid and finally solving a mystery that plagued humans for thousands of years. Albert Szent-Györgyi moved the cage. Today we live in a cage made of the math, biology, chemistry, and physics of out time. And just like how James Lind couldn't conceive the chemistry of lemons and livers we have a hard time moving our own cage.
Ahem all of the scientific stuff i just said goes to this video made by Vsauce2 in a video titled ' The Cure We Forgot'.

 

I can't fathom why you would in any way be against veganism. While i'm a vegetarian myself but not a vegan, I absolutely admire vegans for having the will to help save the environment and preserve species of animals who would have otherwise endured tremendous suffering or even become endangered. For example, going vegan brings greater environmental benefits than buying a hybrid vehicle or eschewing showers for 6 months. In addition to that, raising animals for food uses 30 percent of the Earth’s land mass – or an area about the size of Asia. Humans are literally destroying our planet for the sake of continuing the consumption of animal by-products, which are way more harmful than beneficial to the human body. On the other side of the scale, going vegan means you're no longer participating in our unforgivably macabre meat and dairy industry. The factory farming industry strives to maximize output while minimizing costs—always at the animals’ expense. The giant corporations that run most factory farms have found that they can make more money by squeezing as many animals as possible into tiny spaces, even though many of the animals die from disease or infection.

Animals on factory farms endure constant fear and torment:

• They’re often given so little space that they can’t even turn around or lie down comfortably. Egg-laying hens are kept in small cages, chickens and pigs are kept in jam-packed sheds, and cows are kept on crowded, filthy feedlots.
• Antibiotics are used to make animals grow faster and to keep them alive in the unsanitary conditions. Research shows that factory farms’ widespread use of antibiotics can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten human health.
• Most factory-farmed animals have been genetically manipulated to grow larger or to produce more milk or eggs than they naturally would. Some chickens grow so unnaturally large that their legs cannot support their outsized bodies, and they suffer from starvation or dehydration when they can’t walk to reach food and water.

 

In the United States they (vegans) make absolute fools of themselves and are a general pain in the rear for everone else. Like that one guy who can't shut up about his $20 worth of bitcoin, they don't realise us "meat eaters" don't care about the environment at the same obsessive level

 

I have already stated why animal welfare isn’t something I am concerned with and why I think this. None of the arguments presented above matter without a framework of animal rights, which is where we dsagree. Additionally being a vegetarian is just as condemnable as being a meat eater when examined from a vegan perspective, vegetarians are fine with the imprisonment and rape of animals as long as the animals aren’t being killed and eaten.
To summarize: I have no regard for animal life outside of my normal concern for property, any argument as to the scale of animal suffering is thus rendered meaningless without a framework (that you must provide) of caring for animal life.