Animal Experimentation: More Harmful Than HelpfulAnimal Experimentation: More Harmful Than HelpfulThroughout the history of the United States, the atrocity known as animal experimentation has been a recurring social issue. Every few years an uproar of support or opposition will bring the argument over the viability of animal testing back to the surface. Animal experimentation itself is not a new form of research. Reporters Kerry Fehr-Snyder and Bill Hart from the Arizona Republic explain that animals have been used as test subjects since the time of the Greeks and Romans because human dissection was not allowed (Fehr-Snyder and Hart). Today animals have remained in use because it is not safe to test potentially harmful products on human volunteers, unfortunately forcing animals to become the accepted human analogues (models) in the scientific community.
Many people began to protest the use of animal experimentation once they learned what the cruel testing entailed. According to an “Animal Experimentation Timeline”, “in the late 1800s, a surge of anti-animal experimentation sentiment spread throughout Europe and the United States” (“Animal Experimentation Timeline”). In more recent times, opponents to animal experimentation have joined together to form organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, and the American Anti-Vivisection (live dissection) Society, or AAVS. These organizations and more like them, along with ordinary citizens and sometimes the government, help fight for the much deserved advancement of animal rights. No matter how much scientists and researchers claim that animal experimentation is beneficial, it actually has no scientific bearing and is extremely harmful.
The number one problem with animal experimentation is that it is unethical. Proponents to animal experimentation try to counter this claim in many ways. Charles R. Pulver, a writer for the catholic newspaper The Wanderer, argues that animal testing is in fact ethical because animals do not have rights (Pulver 27). Pulver believes that animals do not deserve rights because they do not understand the duties that come with having rights (Pulver 27). Pulver explains that animals act on instinct and not because they know the difference between right and wrong (Pulver 27). This in turn means the animals cannot be held responsible for their actions, which according to Pulver, is a duty that goes hand in hand with having individual rights (Pulver 26). Another argument made by Pulver is that humans were granted dominion by God over all animals (Pulver 28). This would mean that humans, being superior creatures, could do to animals whatever they please. A less religious stance on the subject is taken by Henry E. Heffner, a psychology professor at the University of Toledo. Heffner deems animal experimentation ethical because he believes that the testing benefits the animals as well as the humans (Heffner 73). Heffner explains that laboratory animals benefit from animal experimentation because they are being bred, which in turn allows them to survive (Heffner 73). Heffner also explains that the massive amount of breeding and the way in which it is done has caused laboratory animals to become more genetically diverse (Heffner 73). This in turn could possibly be beneficial to the animals, giving proponents a reason to support animal experimentation.
The truth, however, is that animal experimentation is unethical. Fehr-Snyder and Hart elucidate on this by revealing that often animals are bred to be killed and dissected and other times the testing done on the animals forces them to be killed (Fehr-Snyder and Hart). For example, ” a researcher at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix has been injecting cancer cells into the brains of beagle puppies…the problem…is that the researcher has been unable to get the cancer cells to grow after more than 8 years of experiments, forcing hundreds of dogs to euthanized” (Fehr-Snyder and Hart). This translates into hundreds of innocent puppies being murdered for no reason at all. Such a needless waste of life should be punished or stopped.
Even when animals are not being killed they are being subjected to painful testing. Dana Bidnall, in an article from Alive: Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition, informs readers that laboratory animals are suffering not only intense physical pain caused by the experiments but also the emotional and neurological discomfort brought on by the testing (Bidnall 50). Bidnall indicates that “a large number of animals suffer isolation, boredom, anxiety, psychological distress, separation from their mothers soon after birth, and sleeplessness” (Bidnall 50). The pain felt by laboratory animals can also be caused by the poor conditions they are forced to live in. Bidnall argues that the way animals are housed in laboratories is harmful because it does not allow them to live the way they were intended to (Bidnall 50). Bidnall upholds this claim
The Animal Health and Welfare Act
A number of recommendations are made to assist animal rights organisations in educating their animal welfare and legal groups on the proper use of animal testing. However, the legislation does not deal in sufficient detail about what the legal obligations are and what this is for (see section 2 of the Act). The most important advice to take is to read the relevant provisions in this section in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the ACT:
This section contains a list of provisions covering: • Animal testing & other animal testing (including laboratory work), • Legal provisions relating to liability, • Legal obligations under the Act, including (see subsection 11.1.3) • Legal obligations that may affect animal welfare (see subparagraph 11.1.3.1); in particular, • The laws that might be affected (paragraphs 11.1.3.1 to 11.4 [AO]). The Act provides that,
(a) any provision relating to liability, liability or other liability arising under, or under the Animal Welfare Act will apply to the use of animals for food, clothing, shelter or other services (whether or not animals will be placed in a new dwelling);
(b) any provision relating to liability, liability or other liability arising under the Animal Welfare Act will apply to any and all liability for breach of any other requirements of the Act relating to, or including any or all of the following conditions: (i) any provision that applies unless and until the Animals Act 1992:
(i) is applied during any period during which a person is involved in, or the person does not directly or indirectly have a direct or indirect control over another person’s welfare or personal health, in relation to any or all matters relating to, or relating to, the welfare of the animal or of any other animal:
(ii) by reason of their death (including: (A) the physical suffering caused by a person in custody or after their death or in confinement; or (B) a natural or criminal restraint (including the use of force or threats of force); and (iii) those circumstances referred to in subparagraph 110(2)(a) or 110(2)(b); or (B) the psychological or emotional pain produced by: (i) the use of drugs, physical or emotional pain taken while a person is under the influence of drugs); (ii) being unable to move to avoid being taken (including the use of drugs); or (C) a mental breakdown in a particular case (including: (A) taking illegal drugs, causing or causing mental conditions or making an unreasonable and unnecessary effort to avoid the misuse of any illegal drug); or (B) using drugs prescribed or approved by the Minister of Health under the Mental Retardation Act 1971 and the rules prescribed by or for prescribed drugs on behalf of the Health Minister; and (iii) any other circumstances that may arise under the Mental Retardation Act 1971
Conduct at a laboratory (but not at the home)
If a laboratory experiment takes place at or over a person’s home they may well find there is a need for testing outside the control of laboratory personnel. For a person who is in an environment in which they are not at home (whether the person has the access or authority to do so), they may find it unnecessary to