Animal Experimentation

The ethics of animal experimentation is a controversial topic and has everyone, from experts in the medical field to philosophers to celebrities, voicing their opinions. Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher and author of the well known book, Animal Liberation, addresses the ongoing debate on this topic in his essay "Humans are Sentient Too". He discusses the ramifications of the extremist actions of a few animal activist groups and the overall damage these actions have and will do for the cause. He sums it up well when he says "The mainstream animal movement has repeatedly condemned the use of violence against sentient beings, human or non-human. My own statements against it now stretch back nearly 20 years. But every large movement attracts extremists who are impatient at the slow pace of change." Singer is asking for a change to be made; an alternative to vivisection, as are these activists who use extreme actions to get their point across.

I can see how these extremists feel a desperation to make a difference as I read stories of the horrible conditions that some of these animals endure for the sake of science. In Alix Fano's article, "Beastly Practice" (The Ecologist 30.3 (2000): 24-28. H.W. Wilson. Syracuse University Library, Syracuse, NY. 17 July 2006.), he describes arsenic testing done on rodents:

"Rats, for example, are remarkably resistant to (arsenic) and develop none of the illnesses - liver, bladder, kidney, and skin cancer - observed in humans. Only when researchers have gone to great lengths - implanting high doses of arsenic compounds in rats' stomachs, under the skin of newborn mice, and into the tracheas of hamsters - have stomach and lung cancers eventually been produced."

He also describes tests done by the EPA to test toxcicity levels of certain chemicals. Although the results of these tests are not conclusive in telling the possible effects of the chemical on humans, the suffering of the animals consists of convulsions, bleeding from their genitals, eyes and mouth, and self-mutililation. The levels of chemicals administered to the animals are far greater than is possible for a human to ingest or have contact with in a lifetime. This is done in order to report negative side-effects of the drug or chemical.

As I said earlier in the post, I can see the desperation, but I do agree with Singer when he says that violent protests will get the animal rights movement nowhere. And as I have researched this topic, I can see how a desperate parent, whose sick child is in need of a cure, may rationalize experiments on animals. I think there needs to be more funding to find alternatives to vivisection. Animals were not put here for us to use as we see fit. They are not our property and deserve the moral consideration of having the basic right to not have to suffer unjustly.