The main debate questions the ethical and moral implications of using animal experimentation in for biomedical research. Should animals be assigned the same moral status as human beings? If animal research is halted due to ethical and moral considerations, how will new biomedical treatments be tested? Where should the line be drawn between animals that should be given moral consideration and animals that should not?
Jerod M. Loeb et al. take the position in “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research” that animal research is necessary to develop effective treatments for diseases that not only affect humans, but animals as well. Tom Regan and colleagues, on the other hand, believe that animal research is unethical and that it shows a lack of respect for the inherent value of an animal.
In “Human vs. Animal Rights,” Jerod M. Loeb et al. begin the argument by stating that Animal Rights groups fail to comprehend the need for animal research. Their argument is furthered by a brief history of the use of animal research for the advancement of medical science. Throughout the 2,000-year plus history of the use of animals in research, technological advances such as vaccines for infectious diseases such as pertussis, rubella, measles, and poliomyelitis have been developed a result. In addition, several surgical techniques, such as coronary artery bypass grafts, were first developed through animal experimentation. Humans are not the only species that has benefited animal research. Various vaccines have been invented to protect various animals – cats, dogs, horses, and hogs just to name a few – from diseases ranging from distemper to encephalitis, all as a result of animal research. The argument by the opposition that adequate alternatives to animal research should be used is countered by the fact that, in most cases, alternatives to using animals in research do not exist. If animals do not continued to be used in research, many more people will suffer and/or die if no viable alternative is found.
In “Ill-Gotten Gains,” Tom Regan argues that a case against animal research can be built around the criterion of inherent value and value of the individual. He acknowledges that under the law, the legal status of animals is inferior to that of humans. He states, however, that the law cannot always be relied upon to be morally relevant. In other words, while animals have no legal rights, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they shouldn’t from a moral, ethical standpoint. His argument is furthered by his distinction of hurting and harming. He claims that reducing the suffering an animal endures during research doesn’t mean that the animal is not being harmed. He defines harming as reducing the welfare of the individual. This ties in directly to his discussion of inherent value in that he views inherent value as being possessed by the individual. The basis of his argument is that if we viewed animals as individuals possessing inherent value, animal research would not continue.
Key terms include speciesism and inherent value. Speciesism is the belief that we as humans discriminate against other animals by adhering to such practices as animal research. Inherent value is the recognition that individuals represent value by living. Those supporting a ban on animal research believe animals have inherent value.
