Animal Testing Rogerian Argument Essay

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Should animals still be used for research purposes?

University of California, Davis, a primate research laboratory is one of the largest in the US with around 4,200 primates the majority being rhesus macaques. The primates in the laboratory are used for researching diseases such as HIV/AIDS, zika virus, Alzheimer’s, respiratory disease, and reproductive health. Recently 8 young baby macaques have died after being exposed to toxic dyes. This was a result of them being exposed to dyes which was used to mark their mothers which later transferred to the babies and proved toxic and fatal. The seven baby macaques were a few weeks old and one was just a day old. Academic and former primate researcher John Gluck had this to say about the incident, “seven infant rhesus monkeys ranging in age from one to 19 days of age were forcibly removed from their mothers, had a physical exam, were tattooed, had blood drawn, were marked with a dye with irritant capacity, and then placed back on their anesthetized and unresponsive mothers”. This also wasn’t the first time that primates at the laboratory have died back in 2005 seven monkeys died from heat exposure and the university was fined $4,815 by the US Department of Agriculture (Milman, 2019).

Background

The infant macaques were found with dyes around their tongues, lips, fur, and skin which suggests that the dye triggered an allergic reaction that led to their deaths. Two of the infants were suffering from respiratory weakness and severe edema including the larynx and tongue before dying. UC Davis was also previously investigated for mistreatment of primates in their research labs in March 2016 two primates were involved in accidents after escaping resulting in one of the primates suffering from two fractured legs. As a result of this and the previously mentioned primate deaths from heat exposure, UC Davis has been a focal point of animal activist groups. Recently one such group has sued the university to force the university to release footage of the primates they are using for research (Asimov, 2019). According to PETA, infant monkeys were separated from their mothers, isolated, and then placed under stressful conditions (Asimov, 2019). The US government has since 2015 cut funding for biomedical research on chimpanzees but statistics in 2016 show that 71,188 non-human primates were still being used for research in the US and the total number of animals being used was 820,812 which was a rise of 7% from 2015 (Speaking of Research, 2018).

Laws surrounding animal research

The Animal Welfare Act of 1966 in America regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition. If any animal dealer were to violate this law they could face imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, and have their license suspended. However, this law is flawed in a huge way as it does not cover all animals. The list of animals it does cover are “live or dead cat, dog, hamster, rabbit, nonhuman primate, guinea pig and any other warm-blooded animal determined by the Secretary of Agriculture for research, pet use or exhibition.” (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019a). This means that rats and mice are some of the few animals excluded but estimates show that rats and mice make up 90% of the animals used in research (Rollin, 2006). Rollin (2006) states that the animals covered by this law are the ones that “aesthetically appeal” to people and that a USDA inspector told him that it is much easier to bring charges against a dead dog abuser than a researcher who is abusing mice. Ethically there is no justice here. Mice and rats are being excluded from the law because most people have cats and dogs that they find cute.

The UK has Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 (ASPA). This act regulates experiments on all vertebrates that could cause them pain and suffering. It is agreed that the UK has the strictest animal testing laws in the world and is the only country that requires cost/benefit assessment before animals can be used (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019b). This is ethical as cost refers to the cost on the animal such as will this animal suffer? Will the results gained from this research be worth the mental and physical suffering of this animal?

Who will be affected?

Anti-Vivisection organizations that campaign against animal testing in any capacity such as The New England Anti-Vivisection Society are calling for UC Davis to be fined $70,000 by the USDA as stated in the article (Milman, 2019). An argument could be made that this fine is negligible for UC Davis as it had an endowment of $1.4 billion in 2018 and a 2017-18 budget of $4.9 billion (Wikipedia Contributors, 2019).

Statistics from 2014 show that in just the EU alone there were 12,808,506 procedures involving 11,481,521 animals and 8,898 of those animals were non-human primates. Should animal testing in any capacity be banned, all those millions of animals in just the EU would have to be relocated. This would create huge pressure on sanctuaries as they wouldn’t be able to cope with the influx of animals that need taking care of.

As mentioned one of the disease UC Davis use primates to research is Alzheimer’s. This is a disease that causes progressive neurodegeneration and cumulates to global brain deterioration. It is also the most common neurodegenerative disease in the world and affects 5% of the population over the age of 65 (Capitanio and Emborg, 2008). Primates are good models for researching Alzheimer’s because they also have a very developed cerebral cortex which is where higher cognitive functions take place which means their cognitive abilities are lower but similar to humans (Hill and Walsh, 2005). The millions of people around the world suffering from these types of diseases would be negatively impacted as years of research and progress would be halted. For example, mouse models are very useful in researching neurodegenerative diseases because mutated genes in the human brain can be modeled on genetically modified mice (Jucker, 2010).

Researchers at universities would also be negatively impacted if animal testing was declared illegal especially if they have dedicated their whole careers to working with animals. Any ongoing projects involved would have to be stopped resulting in time and money that was spent on it being wasted which could also make receiving funding in the future more difficult.

Ethical considerations

Ethical principles are as follows; is it right or wrong, what are the consequences if an action is carried out, ethical egoism is the theory that moral agents should do what benefits themselves the most, utilitarianism is the opposite and is doing what benefits society itself. Biomedical ethical principles are; non-maleficence which means avoiding causing harm, beneficence which means acting in the best interest of others, autonomy which means allowing someone to make their own decisions and justice which involves treating and acting fairly and equally in all cases, and not passing judgment on others which could result in unfair treatment. Badyal and Desai (2014) underlined three questions you need to consider before using animals for testing. “Is the animal the best experimental system for the hypothesis to be tested?”, “Is the problem under review worth solving?” and Can pain and discomfort be minimized for the animal?”.

In the context of this article, the consequences were not considered as it states that UC Davis marks primates with dyes to identify them and that as a result of the deaths of the babies they have changed the procedure so that they don’t mark any monkeys younger than six months old with dye (Milman, 2019). This means that before the incident they hadn’t considered if the dyes would be toxic to infants instead assumed they would react normally to it like the adults. Non-maleficence was broken as seven infant macaques were poisoned and later died. An argument for utilitarianism and beneficence could be made as the monkeys in the lab were being used for research on diseases that are deadly for humans and the results gathered would be beneficial for society at large, but the deaths of the infants did not result from direct experimentation, instead, it was from the transfer of dyes that were used to mark their mothers. This means that these deaths would have been avoidable had they used an alternative method of marking monkeys such as microchips for example instead of toxic dyes. However, as aforementioned the infants weren’t treated ethically and were physically abused by being tattooed and having their blood drawn, and mentally as they were removed from their mothers by force and then reunited with them while they were under medication and unresponsive. Infants being removed by force from their mothers revokes their autonomy.

An argument for animal testing would be a religious one as some believe that god has made man superior to animals so they can do as they please. This is an example of deontological ethics. They base their actions on a series of rules instead of possible consequences of those actions for example divine command. Non-religious individuals could also make this argument as they could believe animals aren’t as intelligent as humans or as developed. But how do we define how intelligent someone or something is? Is intelligence based on whether you can solve a math equation or if you can speak 10 different languages? For example, it was found that rhesus macaques can process information about probability to predict likely future events (De Petrillo and Rosati, 2019). Chimpanzees in the wild have also been observed using tools to gather food from termite nests and bee hives (SANZ and MORGAN, 2007). Sanz and Morgan (2007) state that they observed twenty-two different types of tools and that half were habitually used. This shows that they have the intelligence to find a tool for a specific purpose and reuse it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think animals should be used for research but there needs to be stricter laws and regulations to keep animal suffering to a minimum. I think animals such as the great apes should not be tested as they are just too similar to humans. Lots of research can be carried out using genetically modified rats and mice. There are a lot of benefits to be gained from animal testing in the future and potential diseases which are death sentences now could one day be cured on a mouse or monkey in a lab. However just like the UK law states I believe cost/benefits assessments should be carried out globally before any animal is used for research purposes. I am totally against using animals for researching cosmetics.

Reference list

Asimov, N. (2019). Animal rights group sues UC Davis, demanding videos of alleged abuse of monkeys. [online] SFChronicle.com. Available at: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Animal-rights-group-sues-UC-Davis-demanding-13559986.php [Accessed 5 Dec. 2019].
Badyal, D. and Desai, C. (2014). Animal use in pharmacology education and research: The changing scenario. Indian Journal of Pharmacology, [online] 46(3), p.257. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4071700/.
Capitanio, J.P. and Emborg, M.E. (2008). Contributions of non-human primates to neuroscience research. The Lancet, 371(9618), pp.1126–1135.
De Petrillo, F. and Rosati, A.G. (2019). Rhesus macaques use probabilities to predict future events. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(5), pp.436–446.
Hill, R.S. and Walsh, C.A. (2005). Molecular insights into human brain evolution. Nature, 437(7055), pp.64–67.
Jucker, M. (2010). The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases. Nature Medicine, 16(11), pp.1210–1214.
Milman, O. (2019). Seven baby monkeys died from poisoning at a US research center. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/16/baby-monkeys-poisoned-us-research-center-university-of-california [Accessed 3 Dec. 2019].
Rollin, B.E. (2006). The Regulation of Animal Research and the Emergence of Animal Ethics: A Conceptual History. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27(4), pp.285–304.
SANZ, C. and MORGAN, D. (2007). Chimpanzee tool technology in the Goualougo Triangle, Republic of Congo. Journal of Human Evolution, 52(4), pp.420–433.
Speaking of Research. (2017). Animal Research Regulations in the UK. [online] Available at: https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-regulations-in-the-uk/.
Speaking of Research. (2018). US Statistics. [online] Available at: https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/.
Taylor, K. (2016). EU statistics on animal experiments for 2014. ALTEX, [online] 33(4), pp.465–468. Available at: https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/145 [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].
Understanding Animal Research. (2019). Numbers of animals | Understanding Animal Research | Understanding Animal Research. [online] Available at: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/animals/numbers-animals/.
Wikipedia Contributors (2019a). Animal Welfare Act of 1966. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Welfare_Act_of_1966.
Wikipedia Contributors (2019b). Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_(Scientific_Procedures)_Act_1986 [Accessed 6 Dec. 2019].
Wikipedia Contributors (2019c). University of California, Davis. [online] Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Davis [Accessed 4 Dec. 2019].

Click Here To Order Now!