This paper examines the use of animals in scientific experimentation through an ethical lens, arguing that such practices constitute cruelty and are fundamentally unethical. It begins by defining cruelty and applying that definition to the suffering inflicted on animals in laboratory settings. The paper traces the history of animal experimentation from ancient Rome through the nineteenth century, highlighting key figures such as William Harvey, Claude Bernard, and François Magendie. It also outlines the two major camps of opposition — animal welfare advocates and animal rights activists — and discusses the landmark British Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876. The paper concludes that, given animals' capacity to feel pain, experimentation on them cannot be morally justified.
Animals have been used for the purpose of experimentation for many years. Today, although animal rights activists and others have actively campaigned for this cruel and unethical practice to stop, there are no signs that it will ever come to a real halt — one in which animals would be able to lead free and unfettered lives. It is a sad fact that much of the average human population apparently believes it is entirely acceptable to use animals for experimentation and to deliberately inflict diseases upon these hapless creatures so that human beings might find a cure. Consider, for example, an imaginary scenario in which a woman loves her dog deeply, yet would not hesitate to sacrifice that beloved animal if she were promised the sacrifice would yield a cure for her child's disease. Human beings have always chosen a fellow human over an animal, and this tendency is reflected today in the fact that, although animal rights activists put forth philosophical arguments in favor of animals, people still will not put an end to using these creatures in experimentation (Greek & Greek, 11).
Thesis: The use of animals for experimentation is cruelty to animals and is unethical.
The term cruelty is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "causing, or of a kind to cause pain, distress, etc.; cruelty implies indifference to the suffering of others" (Paul & Elder, 211). What this means is that cruelty encompasses the means by which an innocent being is forced to experience pain for some purpose of the inflictor's own — pain that the inflictor could stop if he or she wished, but does not. This brings us to the central question: in what way is cruelty to animals justifiable in the name of science? Why must an animal be made to suffer untold pain and misery simply so that scientists can analyze and experiment with drugs or scientific methods intended for human beings?
As a matter of fact, even common household items — cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, furniture polish, and oven cleaners — are tested on animals before they are approved and marketed for human use. For example, a few drops of liquid or granules are dropped into a rabbit's eyes to test whether the substance causes irritation. If it does, the human consumer benefits because the product will be withdrawn, improved, and tested again — while the poor creature suffers untold misery throughout the testing process. At times, animals are immobilized in stocks with only their heads protruding, and experiments are then conducted with no anesthesia to dull the pain (Paul & Elder, 211).
Those individuals committed to animal experimentation always have ready arguments to justify its use. They note that two kinds of experimentation on animals are carried out in the world today: first, a compilation of available government data from different countries, and second, a database of all published articles on the issue. Studies are also based on two methods — invasive and non-invasive procedures. While invasive procedures refer to experiments conducted on a conscious, restrained animal with significant pain inflicted, the non-invasive method involves painless research. Researchers stress that pain can be a necessary part of certain procedures and that without it, the experiment would lose its value. In one study of primates in Asia, it was found that more than half of the experiments were of the non-invasive type, in which the primates were active participants (Houde, 256).
However, there is an intrinsic difference between a human being and an animal: while a human being can give informed consent to any experimental procedure, an animal cannot. No animal understands what experimentation is. This raises the fundamental question of how one can ethically justify conducting experiments on them — experiments that often involve blatant cruelty and assault.
Those who voice objections to animal experimentation fall under two broad categories: animal welfare activists and animal rights activists. Animal welfare advocates agree that animal experimentation may continue, but argue it must be minimized so that the pain and suffering of the animals is also reduced. Animal rights activists hold a more radical position, arguing that animals possess rights in much the same way human beings do, and that animals must therefore never be used for experimentation, as this is cruel, brutal, and unethical (Bridgstock, 69).
Animals have been used for experiments since time immemorial, although the practice was comparatively rare before the nineteenth century. One of the earliest recorded instances comes from ancient Rome, when the renowned court physician Erasistratus (129–210 CE) supposedly used a pig to demonstrate the severing of different nerves to his audience by cutting them on the live animal. In the late Middle Ages, anatomy was being actively investigated with the help of animals, who were dissected to reveal the workings of the body. Famous physicians of the era included William Harvey and Andreas Vesalius, both of whom used various animals in their anatomical experiments. Harvey was also known to have used deer in his investigations into blood circulation.
Perhaps most remarkably, René Descartes is known to have argued that animals are essentially machines because they do not experience pain at all. Amazingly, this view persisted well into the twentieth century. It was François Magendie and Claude Bernard who, during the nineteenth century, laid the foundation for modern animal experimentation (Kuhse & Singer, 399).
Magendie and Bernard conducted their experiments on fully conscious, restrained animals and were later condemned for their cruelty and unethical treatment of those animals. These protests culminated in the passage of the British Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876, which imposed some restrictions on the use of animals in experiments. Today, animal experimentation continues, and increasingly, animals are used to test disease-producing viruses and bacteria that affect human beings (Kuhse & Singer, 399).
It must also be noted that opposition to the cruel and unethical treatment of animals has existed throughout the ages, and as experimentation increased, so did resistance to it. Even so, researchers have long maintained that the costs in terms of animal suffering are outweighed by the benefits of experimentation (Monamy, 15).
"Ancient Rome to nineteenth-century foundations of animal testing"
"Landmark legislation and persistent resistance to animal testing"
Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Paul, Richard, and Linda Elder. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge. FT Press, 2002.
You’re 82% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.