The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. It goes as follows: The existence of a suit implies the existence of the tailor who made the suit.
Using Animals Ethically as Research Subjects Yields Valuable Benefits Posted by Nicole SmithDec 15, Health Comments Closed Print The use of animals for research is controversial and even though there are numerous benefits to animal research, the ethical concerns surrounding the argument over animal research trump most others.
The kinds of advances and benefits from animal research that researchers have made in understanding and treating diseases would have been impossible without animal research.
In a survey of psychologists and their relationship with animal research, more than three-quarters of respondents said that they believe the use of animals is critical to the scientific advancement Plous Critics of the argument in favor of animal research contend that inhumane treatment of animals is a problem, and our reliance upon animals for research is an arrogant assertion of our belief that humans are a superior and more valuable species Wenz Each side of the argument on animal research has reasonable arguments with a number of benefits and drawbacks.
However, despite the reasons both sides of the argument over animal research have, what has largely been missing from the debate and argument about animal research and its benefits is a consideration about how researchers can use animals for research within a clear and universal set of ethical guidelines.
Animal use for research need not be inhumane, but in order to avoid cruelty, a formulation of best practices must be devised to guide researchers in acting appropriately. Having such an ethical code for scientists that regulates all aspects of animal research is necessary and if these implemented guidelines about animal research are followed enough and become common practice among animal researchers, the public will see this and a wider discussion about the benefits of animal research can finally begin to emerge since it is clear from science that animal research is not a bad thing as it stands but has many more benefits than one might realize.
Because certain mammals have physiological systems similar to those of humans, they have been viewed as ideal research subjects. Furthermore, because the questionable use of human subjects has become restricted over the years, the use of animals for research has become more important.
Without subjects to use for testing vaccinations, treatments, and even introducing illnesses to evaluate the trajectories of various pathologies, it would be impossible to know and understand how any of these processes and interventions will work.
Ethical concerns plague many sides of the argument against the use of animal research, though. High profile cases have exposed the extent and cruelty of abuses, and have called into question the extent to which research can and should go.
In other words, because of a few cases of ethical violations by those using animal research, the potential benefits are denied civilization because the entire process has such a bad stigma. What is needed to preserve the value and benefits of animal research while ensuring safety and appropriate use is a set of ethical standards that can be applied universally.
Some extreme practices may need to be prohibited, but at the very least, a basic set of guidelines must be set in place, overseen, and enforced. In this way, scientific knowledge can be ethically advanced while respecting the rights and safety of non-human species and ensuring that abuse is minimized or eliminated.
This set of best practices should be devised by an independent panel of experts comprised of people representing both sides of the debate. By incorporating all viewpoints, it is possible to arrive at a set of standards that will be fair and which will protect the health of all species.Dylan Matthews writes a critique of effective altruism.
There is much to challenge in it, and some has already been challenged by people like Ryan Carey. Perhaps I will go into it at more length later. But for now I want to discuss a specific argument of Matthews’. He writes – and I am editing.
Animal rights is the idea in which some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests—such as the need to avoid suffering—should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings..
Its advocates oppose the assignment of moral value and fundamental . The Research Defence Society (RDS; London, UK), an 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.
After the most recent school shooting, NC State Rep. Larry Pittman said he wanted to work with police to train teachers and allow them to carry weapons at school.
As an Army veteran, I've been in. Opinions about the use of animals for research are complicated and often divided when it comes to different purposes or types of research. For instance, a clear majority of people are against the use of animals for testing cosmetics and personal care products.
However, if the research is claimed to save or improve human lives, then opinions shift, even if those claims are hypothetical or baseless. Arguments against testing The critics of animal testing base their argument on the grounds of morality, the necessity or the validity of this procedure, whether proper authority to perform such tests is granted, whether such tests are actually needed and whether such tests practically provide us with any useful information.