Animal Testing in Medical Research

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how strong arguments can be made for and against animal testing and how both sides are quite persuasive on a number of points. Through a literature review, it looks at how those against animal research make strong points about the excessive, pointlessly inhumane, and sometimes unnecessary use of animals, their terrible suffering and the need to look for alternative methods. It examines how they are less convincing in their claim that animals do not serve as adequate vehicles for useful testing or that the past record of achievements employing animal testing is unimpressive. It shows how those who favor the use of animals in research point to a record of achievement that has benefited humanity and are convincing in arguing that animals continue to be useful. But they cannot successfully defend the treatment of animals in terms of quality of life or the infliction of sometimes unnecessary suffering. It evaluates how the best solution is to develop guidelines that do not forbid the use of animals but insist on humane treatment, curtailing waste, sound justifications, eliminating unnecessary suffering, and commitment to developing alternatives to animal research.

From the Paper:

"The principal argument of the animal testing advocates is, therefore, that the use of animals in experiments has and does produce strong results that save hundreds of thousands of human lives. But the principal argument of the opposing side cannot be the one put forward by Barnard and Kaufman for, as the other writers show, there is a clear record of accomplishment and the attempt to mount a scientific argument, without "broach[ing] the ethical objections," is easily refuted (Barnard & Kaufman 82)."

More papers on Animal Testing in Medical Research:

• Essay # 29084 : "Animal Testing"
• Argumentative Essay # 32423 : "Animal Testing and Its Benefits"
• Argumentative Essay # 3632 : "Animal Testing: How Important Is It?"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: