




版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领
文档简介
Should-we-ban-animal-testing-是否应该禁止动物实验
THISHOUSEWOULDBANANIMAL
TESTING
Animalshavearightnottobeharmed.
POINT:Thedifferencesbetweenusandothervertebratesareamatterofdegreeratherthankind.Notonlydotheycloselyresembleusanatomicallyandphysiologically,butsotoodotheybehaveinwayswhichseemtoconveymeaning.Theyrecoilfrompain,appeartoexpressfearofatormentor,andappeartotakepleasureinactivities;apointcleartoanyonewhohasobservedthebehaviourofapetdogonhearingtheword“walk”.Ourreasonsforbelievingthatourfellowhumansarecapableofexperiencingfeelingslikeourselvescansurelyonlybethattheyresembleusbothinappearanceandbehaviour(wecannotreadtheirminds).Thusanyanimalsharingouranatomical,physiological,andbehaviouralcharacteristicsissurelylikelytohavefeelingslikeus.Ifweacceptastrueforsakeofargument,thatallhumanshavearightnottobeharmed,
simplybyvirtueofexistingasabeingofmoralworth,thenwemustaskwhatmakesanimalssodifferent.Ifanimalscanfeelwhatwefeel,andsufferaswesuffer,thentodiscriminatemerelyonthearbitrarydifferenceofbelongingtoadifferentspecies,isanalogoustodiscriminatingonthebasisofanyothermorallyarbitrarycharacteristic^suchasraceorsex.Ifsexualandracialmoraldiscriminationiswrong,thensotooisspecieism.
COUNTERPOINT:Animalsdonothavesucharightnottobeharmed;eveniftheyaresimilartohumansintermsoftheirfeelings(thatoppositiondoesnotconcede)thisrightisimpossibletoarguefor.Therightofahumannottobeharmedisapartofaquidproquothatwewillalsonotdoharmtoothers.Animalsareunabletoengageinsuchacontracteithertousortootheranimals.Animalsarenotabouttostophuntingotheranimalsbecausetheanimalthatishuntedfeel'spainwhenitiscaughtanditevenifanimalexperimentationwastobeended
itisunlikelythathumanitywouldstopkillinganimalseitherforfood,topreventoverpopulationorbyaccidentallofwhichwouldhavetobethecaseifanimalsfeelingofpleasureandpainandresultingrightshadtobetakenintoaccount.
Animalresearchnecessitatessignificantharmtotheanimalsinvolved.
POINT:Animalresearch,byitsverynaturenecessitatesharmtotheanimals.Eveniftheyarenotmadetosufferaspartoftheexperiment,thevastmajorityofanimalsused,mustbekilledattheconclusionoftheexperiment.With115millionanimalsbeingusedinthestatusquothisisnosmallissue.Evenifweweretovastlyreduceanimalexperimentation,releasingdomesticatedanimalsintothewild,wouldbeadeathsentence,andithardlyseemsrealistictothinkthatmanybehaviourallyabnormalanimals,oftenmiceorrats,mightbereadilymoveableintothepettrade.ltisprimafasciaeobvious,thatitisnotintheinterestofthe
animalsinvolvedtobekilled,orharmedtosuchanextentthatsuchkillingmightseemmerciful.Eveniftheoppositioncounterargument,thatanimalslackthecapacitytotrulysuffer,isbelieved,researchshouldnonethelessbebannedinordertopreventthedeathofmillionsofanimals.
COUNTERPOINT:Firstly,duetoourlargerandmoresophisticatedbrains,onewouldexpecttheaveragehumantohaveagreatmanymoreintereststhananyanimal,forthoseintereststobemorecomplexandinterconnected,andfortheretobeagreatercapacityforreflectionandcomprehensionofthesatisfactiongleanedfromtherealisationofsuchinterests.Thus,wecanascribegreatervaluetothelifeofahumanthanananimal,andthusconcludetheretobelessharminpainlesslykillingananimalthanahuman.Secondly,totheextentthatresearchonanimalsisofbenefittohumans,itisthuspermissibletoconductexperimentsrequiring
euthanasiaoftheanimalsubjects.
Researchcanbedoneeffectivelywithoutexperimentingonlivingcreature.
POINT:Asexperimentingonanimalsisimmoralweshouldstopusinganimalsforexperiments.Butapartfromitbeingmorallywrongpracticallywewillneverknowhowmuchwewillbeabletoadvancewithoutanimalexperimentationifweneverstopexperimentingonanimals.Animalresearchhasbeenthehistoricalgoldstandard,andinthecaseofsomechemicalscreeningtests,wasformanyyears,bymanywesternstates,requiredbylawbeforeacompoundcouldbereleasedonsale.Scienceandtechnologyhasmovedfasterthanresearchprotocolshowever,andsothereisnolongeraneedforanimalstobeexperimentedon.Wenowknowthechemicalpropertiesofmostsubstances,andpowerfulcomputersallowustopredicttheoutcomeofchemicalinteractions.Experimentingonlivetissueculturealsoallowsustogaininsightastohowlivingcellsreact
whenexposedtodifferentsubstances,withnoanimalsrequired.Evenhumanskinleftoverfromoperationsprovidesaneffectivemediumforexperimentation,andbeinghuman,providesamorereliableguidetothelikelyimpactonahumansubject.Thepreviousnecessityoftheuseofanimalsisnolongeragoodexcuseforcontinueduseofanimalsforresearch.Wewouldstillretainallthebenefitsthatpreviousanimalresearchhasbroughtusbutshouldnotengageinanymore.Thusmodernresearchhasnoexcuseforusinganimals.
COUNTERPOINT:Mostdevelopedcountries,includingtheUnitedStatesandthemember-statesoftheEuropeanUnion,haveregulationsandlawswhichrequiretheresearchmethodsthatdonotinvolveanimalmodelsshouldbeusedwherevertheywouldproduceequallyaccurateresults.Inotherwords,scientistsarebarredfromusinganimalsinresearchwherenon-animalmethodswouldbejustaseffective.
Further,researchanimalsareextremelyexpensivetobreed,houseandcarefor.Developedcountrieshaveverystrictlawsgoverningthewelfareofanimalsusedinresearch;obtainingthetrainingandexpertadvicerequiredtocomplywiththeselawsiscostly.Asaresult,academicinstitutionsandmedicalorpharmaceuticalbusinessesfunctionunderconstantpressuretofindviablealternativestousinganimalsinresearch.Researchershaveastrongmotivetousealternativestoanimalmodelswhereverpossible.Ifwebananimalresearchevenifresearchadvancescontinuewewillneverknowhowmuchfurtherandfasterthatresearchcouldhavegonewiththeaidofexperimentsonanimals.Animalresearchconductedtodayproduceshigherqualityresultsthanalternativeresearchmethodologies,andisthusitislikelynecessaryforittoremaininorderforustoenjoytherateofscientificadvancementwehavebecomeusedtoinrecentyears.[1]Precisely
becauseweneverknowwherethenextbigbreakthroughisgoingtocome,wedonotwanttobenarrowingresearchoptions.Instead,alloptions-computermodels,tissuecultures,microdosingandanimalexperiments-shouldbeexplored,makingitmorelikelythattherewillbeabreakthrough.
Somegroupsofpeoplehavelesscapacityforsufferingthanmostanimals
POINT:Itispossibletoconceiveofhumanpersonsalmosttotallylackinginacapacityforsuffering,orindeedacapacitytodevelopandpossessinterests.Takeforexampleapersoninapersistentvegetativestate,orapersonbornwiththemostsevereofcognitiveimpairments.
Wecantakethreepossiblestancestowardsuchpersonswithinthisdebate.Firstlywecouldexperimentonanimals,butnotsuchpersons.Thiswouldbeamorallyinconsistentandspecieiststancetoadopt,andassuchunsatisfactory.Wecouldbemorallyconsistent,andexperimentonbothanimalsandsuchpersons.Commonmoralitysuggeststhatitwouldbeabhorrenttoconductpotentiallypainfulmedicalresearchontheseverelydisabled,andsothisstanceseemsequallyunsatisfactory.Finallywecouldmaintainmoralconsistencyandavoidexperimentingonthedisabled,byadoptingthestanceofexperimentingonneithergroup,thusprohibitingexperimentationuponanimals.
COUNTERPOINT:Wedonotneedtojustifythemoralvalueofseverelycognitivelydisabledpersons,althoughifwewantedto,wecouldinvokenotionsofkinship,andfamilyasprovidingajustificationforactinginanapparentlyspecieistmanner.Rather,itissufficienttohighlightthepoint,thatexperimentingonhumansofanycognitivefunction,carrieswithitcertainnegativeexternalities.Suchpersonsarelikelytohaverelativeswhowouldbeharmedbytheknowledgethattheirlovedonesarebeingusedinmedicalexperimentsforexample.Eveninthe
caseofsuchapersonwholacksanyrelatives,broadersocietyanddisabledrightsgroupscouldbeharmedbyapolicythatallowstreatingsomedisabledpersonsdifferentlytotherestofourmoralcommunity.
Suchexternalitieswouldmakeexperimentingonanimals,ratherthansuchpersons,bothpreferableandmorallyconsistent.
Wouldsendapositivesocialmessage,increasinganimalwelfarerightsmoregenerallyinsocietyPOINT:Mostcountrieshavelawsrestrictingthewaysinwhichanimalscanbetreated.Thesewouldordinarilyprohibittreatinganimalsinthemannerthatanimalresearchlaboratoriesclaimisnecessaryfortheirresearch.Thuslegalexceptionssuchasthe1986Animals(ScientificProcedures)ActintheUKexisttoprotecttheseorganisations,fromwhatwouldotherwisebeacriminaloffense.Thiscreatesaclearmoraltension,asonegroupwithinsocietyisabletoinflectwhattoanyothergroupwouldbeillegalsufferingandcrueltytowardanimals.Ifstates
areseriousaboutpersuadingpeopleagainstcockfighting,dancingbears,andthesimplemaltreatmentofpetsandfarmanimals,thensuchgoalswouldbeenhancedbyamoreconsistentlegalpositionaboutthetreatmentofanimalsbyeveryoneinsociety.
COUNTERPOINT:Wedonothavetojustifycockfightingandotheractsofanimalcrueltyasmorallypermissible.Thesearedifferentactstoanimalresearchinanimportantrespect.Itisnottheintentionoftheresearcherstoharmtheanimals,butrathertoproducehighqualityresearchforthebettermentofhumanlives.Whilstitistruethatinsomecasesharmtotheanimalsisareasonablyforeseeableconsequenceoftheresearch,thisisminimisedwhereverpossible,withpainkillers,anaesthesia,andattemptstouseotherresearchmeans.Therearemanyexceptionsinlawwhichmaintainmoralconsistencyduetotheintentionbehindtheact.Forexample,killingsomeoneformoneywouldbemurderandillegal,whilstanexceptionmight
bemadeifyouwerekillinginwar,orself-defence,astheintentionbehindtheactisheldtobebothdifferentandmorallyjust.
Animals'rightsareoflessmoralworththanhumanrights
POINT:Humansarecomplexbeingswithlargewelldevelopedbrains,thatformsizeablesocialgroups,havesignificantabilitytocommunicatewithoneanother,possessinterconnecteddesires,preferencesandinterestsabouttheworld,haveanawarenessoftheirownexistenceandmortality,andassucharebeingsworthyofmoralconsideration.Animalstooexpresssomeofthesecharacteristicstosomedegreeandthusanimalstooareworthyofmoralconsideration.However,animallivesandhumanlivesareofunequalvalue.Thisisduetothefactthatnoanimalpossessesallofthesecharacteristicstothesamedegreeastheaveragehuman,orevencomesparticularlyclose.Thusanyrightsascribedtoanimalsshouldbetruncatedrelative
totherightsweascribetohumans.[1]Thereforeanimalsshouldnotrightlypossessthesamerightstonotbeexperimenteduponashumansmight.Totheextenttowhichcausingsomeharmtoanimalsbringsgreatbenefittohumans,wearemorallyjustifiedincreatingsomemoralharm,toachieveafargreatermoralgood.
COUNTERPOINT:Toarguethattheendsjustifythemeansdoesnotjustifyresearchuponanimals.Firstlywedonotknowtheextenttowhichanimalsarecapableofholdinginterestsorexperiencingsuffering,astheyareunabletocommunicatewithus.Oursharedsimilaritiesgiveuscausetobelievetheymusthaveatleastatruncatedexperienceoftheworldtous,butwecannotknowthelevelofthattruncation.Thusinordertoavoidcommittingasignificantmoralharmuponabeingwedonotfullyunderstand,aprecautionaryprincipleofnon-experimentationwouldbewelladvised.Secondly,evenifwewouldbeachievinganetgainontheutilitariancalculator,thatis
insufficientjustificationonitsown.Bythatsamelogic,experimentingononepersontosavethelivesofmanycouldbejustified,evenifitcausedthemsuffering,andeveniftheydidnotconsent.Commonmoralitysuggeststhatthisisanobjectionablepositiontohold,asthemoralprinciplewouldallowustotreatanybeingasameanstoanendratherthanexistingasabeingofindependentvalue.Inshortsuchlogicwouldallowustoexperimentnotonlyonanimalsbutalsoonnon-consentingpeople,andwepositthattobeanunreasonablepositiontoholdinthisdebate.
Peoplewoulddieandsufferneedlesslyundersuchapolicy
POINT:23newdrugsareintroducedeachyearintheUnitedKingdomalone.Whilealmostallofthesedrugswillhavebeenbroughttothemarketafterextensiveanimaltesting,thenumberofanimalsusedtochecktheirsafetyonlyseemstobeahighcostwhenthebenefitsthateachdrugbringstoitsusersareinadequatelyconsidered.
Newdrugsthatareapprovedformedicalusehavethepotentialtorelievehumanpainandsufferingnotonlyforthefirstgroupofpatientsgivenaccesstothem,butalsoforfuturegenerationsofsickandsufferingindividualstoo.Considerallthelives,allovertheworld,thathavebenefittedfrompenicillinsinceitsdiscoveryin1928.Ifdrugscostmoretoresearchanddevelop,thenthatreducespotentialprofitmargins,andsomedrugsthatwouldhaveotherwisebeendiscoveredandreleasedwillfallbelowthenewthresholdoflikelyprofitsnecessarytofundtheresearch.Adoptingthispropositionwillleadtomorepeoplesufferinganddyinginthefuturethanwouldhaveotherwisebeenthecase.
COUNTERPOINT:Firstlythevastmajorityofdrugsreleasedtoday(around75%)aresocalled“metoo”drugsthataddlittle,ifanygenuineinnovationtotheexistingbodyofpharmaceuticalsinproduction.Rather,theyrepresentonlyaslightmoleculartweakonanexistingdrugline.Suchdrugsrarelysavelivesorevenrelievemuchsufferingupontheirrelease,astheyareonlyveryslightlybetter,foronlysomepatients,thanthedrugsavailablepriortoitsrelease.[1]Nonetheless,thedevelopmentofonlytechnicallynovelcompoundsisusedasajustificationforresearchonanimals,evenwhenthebenefitfromsuchresearchismarginalatbest.Secondly,eveniftherewasasmallincreaseinfuturehumansuffering,relativetoafuturewheresuchapolicywasnotadopted,itwouldbeworthitduetothesavingofsomuchanimalsuffering,andthemoralimpermissibilityofinflictingthatforourowngains.
Allthisisnotwithstandingthepropositionpointthatmuchoftheresearchdoesnotnecessitateanimaltesting.
Animalresearchisnecessaryforthedevelopmentoftrulynovelsubstances
POINT:Undoubtedlythen,themostbeneficialresearchtomankindisthedevelopmentoftrulynoveldrugs.Evenaccordingtothepropositionthisrepresentsaboutaquarterofallnewdrugsreleased,whichcouldbeseenassignificantgiventhegreatpotentialtorelievethesufferingbeyondourcurrentcapacitythatsuchdrugspromise.
Aftertheeffects,sideeffectsandmorecomplexinteractionsofadrughavebeenconfirmedusinganimalandnon-animaltesting,itwillusuallypasstowhatiscalledaphaseIclinicaltrial-testsonhumanvolunteerstoconfirmhowthedrugwillinteractwithhumanphysiologyandwhatdosagesitshouldbeadministeredin.TheriskofahumanvolunteerinvolvedinaphaseItrialbeingharmedisextremelysmall,butonlybecauseanimaltests,alongwithnon-animalscreeningmethodsareahighlyeffectivewayofensuringthatdangerousnoveldrugsarenotadministeredtohumans.IntheUnitedKingdom,overthepasttwentyyearsormore,therehavebeennohumandeathsasaresultofphaseIclinicaltrials.
Novelcompounds(asopposedtoso-called"me-too"drugs,thatmakeslightchangestoanexistingtreatment)arethesubstancesthatholdthemostpromiseforimprovinghumanlivesandtreatingpreviouslyincurableconditions.However,theirnoveltyisalsothereasonwhyitisdifficultforscientiststopredictwhethertheymaycauseharmtohumans.
Researchintonovelcompoundswouldnotbepossiblewithouteitheranimaltesting,ortremendousrisktohumansubjects,withinevitablesufferinganddeathonthepartofthetrialvolunteersonsomeoccasions.Itisdifficulttobelievethatinsuchcircumstancesanyonewouldvolunteer,andthateveniftheydid,pharmaceuticalcompanieswouldbewillingtoriskthepotentiallegalconsequencesofadministeringasubstancetothemtheyknewrelativelylittleabout.Inshort,developmentofnoveldrugsrequiresanimalexperimentation,
andwouldbeimpossibleundertheproposition'spolicy.
COUNTERPOINT:Thisagainhighlightssomeoftheproblemswithanimalresearch.IntheUKexamplecited,animaltestinghadbeendone,andthedosegiventothehumanvolunteerswasatinyfractionofthedoseshowntobesafeinprimates.Animalresearchisanunreliableindicatorofhowdrugswillreactinthehumanbody,andassuchalternativesshouldbesoughtandimprovedupon.
Animalresearchisonlyusedwhereotherresearchmethodsarenotsuitable
POINT:Developedcountries,includingtheUSandallmembersoftheEU(sinceEUDirective2010/63/EU)havecreatedlawsandprofessionalregulationsthatpreventscientistsfromusinganimalsforresearchifother,non-animalresearchmethodswouldproduceequallyclearanddetailedresults.
Theprincipledescribedaboveisalsoenshrinedinthe"3Rs"doctrine,whichstatesthatresearchersandtheiremployershaveadutytoidentifywaystorefineexperimentsconductedonanimals,sothatyieldbetterresultsandcauselesssuffering;replaceanimalsusedinresearchthenon-animalalternativeswherepossible;andreducethenumberofanimalsusedinresearch.Notonlydoesthe3Rsdoctrinerepresentapracticalwaytoreconcilethenecessityofanimalresearchwiththeuniversalhumandesirenottocausesuffering,italsodrivesscientiststoincreasetheoverallqualityoftheresearchthattheyconduct.Governmentsandacademicinstitutionstakethe3Rsdoctrineveryseriously.InEUcountriesscientistsarerequiredtoshowthattheyhaveconsideredothermethodsofresearchbeforebeinggrantedalicenseforananimalexperiment.
Thereareahugenumberofwaysoflearningaboutourphysiologyandthepathologieswhichaffectit,includingtocomputermodels,cellcultures,animalmodels,humanmicrodosingandpopulationstudies.Thesemethodsareusedtocomplementoneanother,forexampleanimalmodelsmaywellproducedatathatcreatesacomputermodel.Nonetheless,thereissomeresearchwhichcannotbedoneanyotherway.Itisdifficulttounderstandtheinteractionofspecificsetsofgeneswithoutbeingabletochangeonlythesegenes-somethingpossiblethroughgeneticallymodifiedanimals.
Finally,asnotedabove,giventhehighcostofconductinganimalresearchrelativetoothermethods,thereisafinancialincentiveforinstitutionstoadoptnon-animalmethodswheretheyproduceasusefulandaccurateresults.
COUNTERPOINT:Theopposition'sconclusionscanbeattackedinthreeways.First,countriesthatarelesseconomicallydevelopedthanwealthyNorthAmericanandEuropeanstatesarenotlikelytosupportrulesorlawssimilartothe3RsdoctrineorDirective2010/63/EU.Inthesecountries,lowanimalwelfarestandardsoftenmeanthatanimalresearchischeaperrelativetothecostofnon-animalmethodssuch
ascomputermodelsorcellcultures.
Second,acrosstheworld,researcherstendtospecialiseincertainfields.Animalresearc
温馨提示
- 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
- 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
- 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
- 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
- 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
最新文档
- 学校水塔罐管理制度
- 学校网球队管理制度
- 学校防渗漏管理制度
- 学生护校队管理制度
- 安保处工作管理制度
- 安全生产等管理制度
- 安康电动车管理制度
- 安装类公司管理制度
- 实训室用电管理制度
- 实验室气瓶管理制度
- 2025年中考英语考前冲刺卷(广东卷)(解析版)
- 郑州中原绿色产业生态发展公司招聘笔试真题2024
- 深圳市非承重墙体与饰面工程施工及验收标准SJG 14-2018
- 农村抗震农房装配式施工安全监理合同
- 铝粉加工合同协议书
- 大学语文试题及答案安徽
- 近七年宁夏中考化学真题及答案2024
- 2025至2030中国芳纶纤维行业需求预测及发展前景趋势研究报告
- 十一学校小升初入学测试数学真题及详细解答
- Braden 压力性损伤评分表详解
- 婚内赌博欠债协议书范本
评论
0/150
提交评论