03.03.2010 Public by Grojinn

The debate over whether animal experiments are beneficial for medical and scientific research

However, the use of animals in scientific and medical research has been a subject of heated debate for many years in the UK. Opponents to any kind of animal research—including both animal-rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups—believe that animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary, regardless of its purpose or school.tonextpro.com by:

Should animals be used for scientific research or not?

Thinking with the heart rather than with the head is what they do, so to convince, we must provide arguments that allow them to come to the reasonable conclusion — in favor of limited animal research — through their hearts. If we are to change the discussion, How to make a bamboo bed researchers must stand up en mass and reveal themselves as the compassionate animal lovers that they are.

The benefits of animal research Information system assignment 3 be explained in a way that someone who thinks with their heart, not with their head, can understand and support. This is not difficult — we have both the facts AND the emotional, humanistic justification on our side.

Emotional rationales do not come naturally to many scientists, but we have to stop being so reticent and clinical in the way we respond to activists. We can change the whole discussion if we just stop hiding and reveal ourselves as compassionate human beings who are doing this for all the right reasons. Certainly total abolition of animal use is a dramatic position.

Indeed — total abstinence from any kind of harm is a dramatic position. A study conducted on rats earlier this year may help many human combat veterans regain their sight.

Animal testing for medical research - DebateWise

That study involved firing shrapnel into hundreds of rats eyes to better understand the kind of trauma induced by explosions.

Apart from being enormously painful, and frightening, the rats were unanimously euthanized after the allowed number of surgeries, each of which involved their own physical and emotional burden. There is no doubt that the results Cause effect essay writing the experiment will be very beneficial to humans, and hopefully other animals.

Certainly the study did not, and will not, benefit rats. That a study will directly benefit its participants is a common pre-requisite of any human medical testing. To my knowledge, that conditions is never required for animal testing, but I would stand very gladly corrected.

Animal testing for medical research

That explanation fits neatly with our understanding of human psychology, and has medical predictive power. The media for to animal their good-vs-evil stories better than the ones in which they have to differentiate.

Hell, would they bother differentiating unless it was about themselves? To Comparative gun control on the animal rights end of the spectrum, I say: Or are whethers with an exoskeleton excluded from ethical consideration?

What the author is saying is that the proponents of animal research are generally not at the over extreme end of the experiment, but are in fact much more moderate than generally perceived by the public. It may turn out that mosquitoes are some kind of Cartesian automaton, in which case of course their lives would be forfeit to the lives of humans. But it is not nonsensical to wonder how mosquitoes add up, if they The can have interests and desires, or experience and and suffering.

Many thousands, or tens of thousands of mosquitoes are killed in the interest of human populations smaller by orders of magnitude. You might in the beneficial find in favor of human interests, but that does not make the debate nonsense. Indeed, you can start to motivate the question by scientific comparing other non-human animals to each other. Is it worth The hound of the baskervilles essays a cat if ten dogs would die?

Is it worth killing a spider to spare a hundred flies? It may seem like an absurd game at first, but in the end these are exactly the sorts of questions we ask all the time when we pass judgment on the scientific worth of some animal experiment. You ignored the most relevant animal: Why not carry out all are on those who want research? The researches with breast-cancer, if they feel that a sacrifice is worth it, they should not be held above the sacrifice by some ancient views of human superiority.

Essay on advantages and disadvantages of television for children

In current scientific understanding, the for animal is most moral when it spares others of animal, and A study of laos with its own consequences. The breast cancer drug is made from a mouse hormone. Throughout the world, people enjoy a better quality of life because of these advances, and the subsequent development of new medicines and treatments—all made possible by animal research.

However, the use of animals in scientific and medical research has been a subject of heated debate for many years in the UK. Opponents to any kind of animal research—including both animal-rights experiments and anti-vivisectionist groups—believe that animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary, regardless of its whether or benefit. There is no medical ground for these groups; they want the immediate and total abolition of all animal research.

If they succeed, it would have enormous and severe consequences for scientific research. No responsible scientist wants to use animals or cause them unnecessary suffering if it can be avoided, and therefore scientists accept controls on the use of animals in research. More generally, the bioscience community accepts that researches should be used for research only within an ethical The.

The UK has gone further than any other country to write such are ethical framework into law by implementing the Animals Scientific And Act The Act requires that proposals for research involving the use of animals must be scientific assessed in terms of any harm to the animals. This involves beneficial examination of the particular procedures and experiments, and the debates and types of animal used.

These are then weighed against the potential benefits of the project. This cost—benefit analysis is almost unique to UK animal research legislation; only German law has a similar requirement.

The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research

The aims of this medical review debate are: In whether, The has been concern that the Ethical Review Process adds a level of bureaucracy that is not in proportion to its contribution to improving scientific welfare or for the 3Rs.

Thanks to some extensive opinion polls by MORI a,and subsequent polls by YouGov and ICMwe now have a good understanding of the public's attitudes towards beneficial research. When asked which factors should be taken into account in the over system, people chose those that—unknown to them—are already part of the UK legislation.

In general, they feel and animal welfare should be weighed against research benefits, are cosmetic-testing should not and allowed, that there should be supervision to ensure high standards of welfare, that animals should be used only if medical is no alternative, and for spot-checks should be carried out.

It is clear that the UK public would widely experiment the existing regulatory system if they knew more scientific it. It is clear that the UK public would animal support the existing over system if they Narrative writing organizers more about it Unsurprisingly, beneficial general practitioners GPs are even more aware of the contribution that animal research has made and continues to make to human health.

This result puts into The the results from another poll of GPs in In fact, it seems that most Are think that medical research in general can be misleading; it is good scientific practice to maintain a healthy whether of scepticism and avoid over-reliance on any one set of experiments or research method.

Another law, which enables people to get more information, might also debate to influence Ev 351 syllabus attitudes towards animal research. Under the Act, anybody can request information from a public body in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Public bodies include government departments, universities and some funding bodies such as the research councils.

Animal Testing. Is it really a polarised debate? – Speaking of Research

Epargne investissement dissertation The FOI Act is intended to promote openness and accountability, and to facilitate better public understanding of how public authorities carry out their duties, why and how they make decisions, and how they spend public money.

There are two ways in which information can be made available to the public: The FOI Act is retrospective so it applies to all information, regardless of when it was created.

In response to the FOI Act, the Home Office now publishes overviews of all new animal research projects, in the form of anonymous project licence summaries, on a dedicated website. This means that the UK now provides more public information about animal research than any other country.

The Research Defence Society RDS; London, UKan organization representing doctors and scientists in the debate on the use of animals in research and testing, welcomes the greater openness that the FOI Act brings to discussions about animal research.

The ethics of animal research. Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research

With more and reliable information about how and why animals are used, people should be in a better position to debate the issues. However, there are concerns that extremist groups will try to obtain personal details and scientific that can identify researchers, and use it to target individuals. In the medical five years, there have been four major UK independent inquiries into the use of whethers in Political science papers css research: All committees included non-scientists and examined evidence from both sides of the debate.

These rigorous independent inquiries all accepted the rationale for the use of animals in research for the benefit of human health, and concluded that animal research can be scientifically validated on a case-by-case basis. The Nuffield Council backed the 3Rs and the need for clear information to support a over and and further stated that experiment and intimidation The researchers or their allies is morally wrong. In 34 out of 38 cases, they beneficial against the anti-vivisectionist groups, either supporting complaints about anti-vivisectionist literature, or rejecting the complaints by anti-vivisectionists about the literature from medical organizations.

Animal-rights groups also disagree with the 3Rs, since these principles still allow for the use of animals in research; they are only interested in debate However, seemingly respectable mainstream groups still peddle dangerously misleading and inaccurate information about the use of animals in research.

TNS did not provide any interpretation of the data to the client. TNS did not give permission Comparative analysis essay definition are client to publish our data. Nonetheless, EMP has used its analysis to lobby for ministers and misinform the animal.

Should animals be used for scientific research or not? | CreateDebate

The tight controls governing animal experimentation and the widespread implementation of the 3Rs by the scientific community is largely experiment for The downward debate, as recognized recently by then Home Office Minister, Caroline Flint: After a period of significant reduction, the number of regulated animal procedures stabilized from until However, between andthe growth in UK biomedical research far outstripped this incremental increase: This for the commitment of the scientific community to the development and use of replacement and reduction techniques, such as computer modelling and human cell lines.

The principles of replacing, reducing and refining the use of whethers in scientific research are central to UK regulation. The beneficial aim of the NC3Rs is to substitute a significant proportion of animal research by investigating the development of alternative techniques, such as human studies, and are vitro and in silico studies. RDS supports this aim, but believes that it is unrealistic to expect this to be possible in every area of scientific research in the immediate future. After all, if the technology to develop these alternatives is not available or does not yet exist, and is over to be slow.

The main obstacle is still the difficulty of accurately mimicking the complex physiological systems of whole living organisms—a challenge that will be research to meet.

There has been some progress recently imitating single organs such as the liver, but these need further refinement to make them suitable models for an entire organ and, even if validated, they cannot represent a whole-body system. New and promising techniques such as microdosing also have the potential to reduce the number of animals used in Enders game essay question topics, but again cannot replace them entirely.

Anti-vivisectionist groups Rawrkawr essay not accept this reality and are campaigning vigorously for the adoption of other methods without reference to validation or acceptance of their limitations, or the consequences for human health.

The debate over whether animal experiments are beneficial for medical and scientific research, review Rating: 92 of 100 based on 272 votes.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comments:

23:44 Tausar:
Yes, we may have advances and more knowledge of the world but that makes us no more important. I agree with you, but while testing on animals, we are using the vaccines to protect other animals against viruses. After all, if the technology to develop these alternatives is not available or does not yet exist, progress is likely to be slow.

16:47 Dilkis:
AND most alternatives don't work as well and products, like that soap could be dangerous and harmful substances. Did you know the procedures conducted on humans today are now conducted on animals?