There have been increasing concerns about the use of animals in scientific research. After the discovery of blood circulations by William Harvey’s in the 17 th century, scientific studies have been on focused on the use of animals in testing for human-related ailments (Straus & Straus, 2006). According to the ancient Greek, animals were considered to be of lesser life forms because they did not have the same thinking capacity as humans. Christians further argue that animals are less significant because they possess no soul. The use of primate testing is to create a better understanding of the effect of some medical substances on human health. Studies on animals have been undertaken by various medical industries. Some of the animals that have been used for testing include mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and dogs. This makes the use of animal testing a worldwide concern particularly on some of the ethical issues around the experimental use of animals for research studies. The recent years have seen increased use of animal experimentations. Annually, more than 20million animals have been used to test various medical substances. Study findings reveal that about 10% of pure psychological studies which use animals as test subjects. However, there is growing controversy over the cruelty and immorality that surround the use of animals. As such, there are lobby groups that have set against the use of animals in scientific research studies. As much as there are legal provisions that guard against enforcement and the use of animals, views of opposing the use of animals aims to achieve criminalization of the act. If the subject on the use of animals for experimental reasons is viewed on a wider perspective, the use of animals can be key to helping human attain better scientific discoveries of new medicines that can improve healthcare provision. However, such a view still conforms to Greece thinking that animals are inherently perceived to be of less significance than human beings. This paper seeks to identify some of the pros and cons of the use of nonhuman primates in laboratory research studies. Considerations will be given to different stakeholders that are involved in the use of animals in the scientific and laboratory research studies.
Discussion
The use of nonhuman primates in the laboratory testing has significantly helped in the development of new and better treatment methods. It is glaring that human beings are increasingly exposed to a number of life threating ailments which encompass existing diseases or a new form of diseases that are occasioned by gene mutations and environmental changes. Scientific studies thence must focus on finding a cure to a number of this diseases. As such, use of nonhuman primates for laboratory testing becomes a key aspect in sustaining human health. The use of these animals is key to identify the trend and effect of new drugs on human and whether they are fit for human consumption.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are a number of beneficial outcomes that have been realized from animal testing. Key among them include the discovery of new medicine and treatment methods. According to Mayer et.al (2007), notable medical advances have been eased through the use of animals in research and testing procedures. For instance, dogs were used to create and produce insulins. Even though these primates were used in the production of the anti-rejection drug known as the Cyclosporine. Moreover, other significant discoveries in vaccinations have been achievable through animal experimentation. Based on these accounts, it is safe to argue that the use of nonhuman primates has helped in the advancement of knowledge about the organism as well as new discoveries.
Much of the discoveries in the medicine and health industry aims at finding a solution to a number of diseases. Nonetheless, the side effects of a number of this diseases remain largely unknown. In this regards, views that support the use of nonhuman primates in the research studies argue that they significantly aid the evaluation of the side effects of the drugs before their resultant use on human. As such, to a larger extent, they help in the risk reduction before human-centered test runs are conducted. Moreover, tested drugs save millions of human lives. However, the future research studies on animals testing demand the need to fully legalize and operationalize the use of animal testing.
However, there is a significant margin of error that exists when nonhuman primates are used in the laboratory testing on the suitability of substances for human usage. There is growing concern that there is an existing variance in the effects of substances on human and animals. McCarthy et.al (2011) brings a classic case of the failed arthritis drugs, Vioxx. The Vioxx drugs are reported to have caused approximately 140,000 instances of stroke and heart attack in the United States. This led to the global withdrawal of the drug form the market. However, the test results on the animals proved that the drug was safe for human consumption. Nonetheless, studies increasingly show that nonhuman primates have a significant resemblance to human hence the need to use them in research studies. The affirmation has been held on the similar results that animals have obtained from human experiments. On this regard, the use of nonhuman primates in laboratory testing has been identified to have an indirect positive effect in improvement of the quality of human lives.
The underlying argument herein is that the use of animals in conducting test runs must be legalized to aid more studies as well as protection of the animals. Legalization of the process will help in setting up guidelines upon which studies involving the animals are conducted (Bryant, 2006). On the other hand, in using animals testing, there must be the acknowledgment to the margin of error and inaccuracy that the results may have when conducted upon these animals. Encouraging test runs on nonhuman primates have a higher chance of improving the quality of human life which remains the central focus of humanity.
Human lives are treated with high regards compared to the lives of animals. There is glaring drift that currently exists between animals and human beings. The popular view is the unequal divide that separates the two entities (Akhtar, 2015). The opposing view of the use of nonhuman primates is that human beings tend to lack conscience when they consider other life forms to be inferior. In this view, human beings argue that their lives are of significance hence the sacrificial use of animals in product and drug experimentations.
The argument for and against the use of animals in testing as debated on the two extremes seem to have some weight justification. From the sentiency point of view, there are opined that all life forms have a moral and equivalent value for life (Kleinig, 200). However, the must be an acknowledgment of the effect that human beings are by far and large superior to other living animals. In this case, a choice must be made on the critical significance on the welfare of both animals and humans. In so doing the question of the importance of each life must be evaluated. The superiority of the lives of humans above animals makes it easier for a man to sacrifice the lives of the nonhuman primates in the laboratory experiments.
In the use of nonhuman primates, human welfare remains to the principal concern. The use of animals in the experimentation processes are done with the view of minimizing the suffering that humans could be subjected. Lobby groups and the Animal Welfare Act constantly aim to protect the number of animals involved in the studies as a way of increasing protective measures. An increasing trend is the use of anesthesia on the animals that are used in experimental studies. Moreover, subsequent studies are not supposed to be conducted on animals that have been subjected to lab studies. This aims at minimizing the suffering that animals are exposed to during the studies. Acceptable is conducting of animal-based tests to improve the quality of human lives without leading to the undue suffering of the animals.
Animals just like human beings have the right to life and peaceful living. Opposing views to the use of animals argue that use of nonhuman primates is an unkind form of treatment to the animals. It considerably violates the right to live that all life forms should be accorded. However, supporters of the use of animals for laboratory testing argue that opposing views are weak and lack a sense of judgment. In their view, animals cannot have the moral standing to be equated to the human lives. Furthermore, they opine that as long as there is no sense of pain on the animals, then their welfare is not in any respect negated. Therefore, it is acceptable to legalize the use of animals with a view of prioritizing and protecting human lives.
As much as there are so many schools of thoughts that aim to discourage the use of animals in laboratory research, their argument is not weighted enough to discourage such usages. Supporting views avers that animals cannot have the same rights as those held by human beings. Key to this effect is the lack of sense of judgment among the animals. Moreover, man has custody over living creatures atop and below the earth surface thus giving them the mandate to utilize the animal's resources in improving the quality of their lives. Additionally, the animal's rights are adequately protected when they are not subject to pain and suffering during the experimentation process. As such, the use of animals in the studies ensures improved quality of human lives as well as saving of life.
There are new chemical substances that are manufactured annually to meet the demand for the market such as medicine, cosmetic and agricultural products. Most of these products maintain the world economy in terms of monetary and employment opportunities. Test on animals has made it possible for the world to realize some of the benefits that are attached to this product. Animal testing assures the safety of some of these products as well as overall improvement of human life.
Performing research studies on animals help in gaining significant data on the living specimens. Those opposing the use of nonhuman primate in the research studies must identify with the reality that 70% of all Nobel prices for the medicine and physiological studies have been contributed by animal testing (Watson & Platt, 2012). As such, there is a strong body of evidence that has helped scientists to understand the effects that substances can bring the world. Discovery and expansion of human knowledge are adequately limited or remain unfounded when studies that involve the use of animals are hindered. Primates have been identified to have one of the best models for studies because of the 99% gene similarity that they possess with humans. As such, it is noticeable that safety of substances should be tested on the animals before their use on humans.
Opposing views on the use of animals testing remain unfounded given the world breakthroughs and discoveries that have been made. The underlying benefits of the use of nonhuman primates significantly outweigh the potential drawbacks (Yong et.al, 2013). Without the use of animal studies, discoveries on major vaccines such as rubella, Hepatitis B, Polio would remain to be a mirage. However, technologies have equally helped reduce the burden of the use of animals in research. For instance, there is increased computer modeling and animals testing to ascertain the efficacy of the products on humans. Based on this, it could be argued that studies that involve the use of primate remain key to the valuable similarities that they possess with other animals. Acceptance and legalization of the practice must be accepted both for research and expansion of human knowledge.
In summary, the intensified use of nonhuman primates on experimentation is likely to increase as people grow conscious of the ethical and moral grounds upon which such studies are conducted. Upon look to arguments and counter-arguments into the subject, it is glaring that some of the positive effects of such uses significantly outweigh the negative effects. The use of animals in research significantly advance human knowledge and improve the general quality of life. Human beings are by far and wide that most intelligent of all life forms, as the survival of the fittest avers, man shall continue to exercise dominance over other life forms to his advantage.
References
Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , 24 (4), 407-419.
Bryant, T. L. (2006). Animals Unmodified: Defining Animals/Defining Human Obligations to Animals. U. Chi. Legal F. , 137.
Kleinig, J. (2014). Valuing life (Vol. 1215). Princeton University Press.
Mayer, E. A., Bradesi, S., Chang, L., Spiegel, B. M., Bueller, J. A., & Naliboff, B. D. (2007). Functional GI disorders: from animal models to drug development. Gut .
McCarthy, John, Jocelyn Szeto, Lawrence Rice, Marc T. Nuttall, George M. Rodgers, Franklin A. Bontempo, John M. Buergler et al. "METHODIST." (2011).
Straus, E. W., & Straus, A. (2006). Medical marvels: The 100 greatest advances in medicine . Prometheus Books.
Watson, K. K., & Platt, M. L. (2012). Of mice and monkeys: using non-human primate models to bridge mouse-and human-based investigations of autism spectrum disorders. Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders , 4 (1), 21.
Yong, K. T., Law, W. C., Hu, R., Ye, L., Liu, L., Swihart, M. T., & Prasad, P. N. (2013). Nanotoxicity assessment of quantum dots: from cellular to primate studies. Chemical Society Reviews , 42 (3), 1236-1250.
