Should Animal Research in Psychology be Eliminated?
This is a controversial issue that I am sure many will argue very strongly on either side. What are the justifications of eliminating animal research in psychology? On the contrary, what are the benefits of doing animal research in psychology? I believe that even though animal research looks cruel and seems to commit speciesism, the benefits human get still outweighs the cost of it. In the following paragraphs, I will summarize the pro, con positions and my position on the topic – should animal research in psychology be eliminated. I will also apply my perspectives to the literacies of: critical, civic, science, and values.
In my research I have learned that many animal abolitionists believe that engaging in animal research is to commit speciesism, often without any important research findings at all. For example, Singer describes that “in some detail many different types of animal research in psychology but finds none that justifies that suffering of the animals involved” (Singer 79). I also learned that when animals are subjected to harmful procedures, they are unjustifiably discriminated against (speciesism) in the same way that other races might be unjustifiably discriminated against (racism). The main points in favor of eliminating animal research in psychology are Lower and higher animals (humans) do not absolutely differ on any factor relevant to their suffering in psychological experimentation; many psychological experiments using animals are conducted for insignificant reasons; the members of many animal-use committees are biased toward the use of animals in questionable experiments; experimenters have been trained to ignore or overlook the incredible suffering of animals in psychological research (Singer 79).
In a word, whenever experimenters claim that their experiments are important enough to justify the use animals, we should ask them whether they would be prepared to use a brain-damaged human being at a similar mental level to the animals they are planning to use. If not, it shows that we are favor the one in our species, revealing a bias no defensible than racism or any other form of arbitrary discrimination.
Contrary to those who believe that we should eliminate animal research in psychology, there are those who believe that “the consequences of engaging in animal research provide clear benefits to humans that offset the costs to animals involved in the research” (Frey 87). The benefits involved here are understood to include such things as advances in knowledge as well as things more commonly regarded as benefits, such as improvements in diseases diagnosis and treatment. A lot of evidence shows that animal research has been bringing human great benefits, for example, “Genetic research involving animals promises new treatments for diseases that previously were thought to be intractable defects in the human condition. AIDS research proceeds apace, with animal research playing a crucial role. One aspect of genetic engineering that is become carriers of human organs for human transplants. Cross-species transplants-xenografts-that should result from these efforts will benefit the thousands of people who die each year while waiting on the queues for human organs” (Frey 89). With the prospect of such remarkable discoveries on the horizon, I do not think it likely that very many people will agree to eliminate animal research. Also from another perspective, it is clear that animals should be used for research because their qualities of lives are lower than that of most human. By saying this I do not mean that the qualities of all human beings are higher than all animals. I only said that the quality of most animal lives is lower than human. Every hospital in the land uses quality-of-life consideration s in making all kinds of judgments, including life-or-death judgments. Hospitals use such considerations constantly in human health care, including situations in which they decide who will receive treatment and of what sort, who will be saved, and who left to nature’s course. If quality-of-life is ubiquitous in making health care decisions for humans, how can it be sundered from medicine’s bedrock- experimentation? Clearly not (Frey 95).
It is unimaginable that we do a drug test on a human, which might cause the death of human rather than on an animal.
I agree that the benefit of doing animal research greatly outweighs the losses or suffering of the animals involved in experimentation. It was proven that animal research can improve human knowledge in diseases diagnosis and treatment, which can save thousands of human lives. Also it is true that most human beings do have a higher quality of life than most of the animals. As a human being, it will never seem right to me that doing an experiment on a human being, which might cause the death of the human being, in the mean time we have the option of doing it on an animal. I am pretty sure about one thing that most of the animal right supports eat animals. If it is not justifiable to do animal research, why is it acceptable for humans to eat animals? Using animals in research might not kill an animal, but eating an animal will for sure cost an animal’s life. If animal research is not reasonable, does this mean that humans should be limited to eat animals too? The above reasons make me believe that it is justifiable to do use animal in experimentation. However, I do criticize some students or scientists use animals in some insignificant experiments. I also agree that, everything country should have an animal-use committees to regulate the use of animal, preventing misusing animals in experimentation.
Critical Literacy: critical thinking is an ability to evaluate information an opinion in a systematic, purposeful, efficient manner. In the pro side, author Peter Singer mainly uses speciesism to support the elimination of animal research in psychology. He believes that “when animals are subjected to harmful procedures, they are unjustifiable discriminated against in the same way that other races might be unjustifiably discriminated against” (79). He refutes the notion that lower animals are absolutely different from higher animals (human). He also uses a lot of detail stories, revealing many animals are being used in a lot of insignificant experimentation. I think it is creative that Peter Singer expends speciesism into racism. It is convincing to use speciesism point. Speciesism is about the same as racism in context. When we have the option to choose our species and other species in experimentation, we favor our species, which is the same logic that racism favors its own race; however, when Peter Singer uses detailed stories about how animals are misused in the experimentation, he does not compared the losses of the animals with the great benefits that animal research might bring us, which makes it less convincing. In the con side, Frey uses the great benefits of animal research bringing to us to justify that animal research should not be eliminated. This is a very convincing point. He compares the losses of animals in experimentation and the benefits that animal research bringing to us, clearing showing that the benefits of saving thousands of human lives by the animal research outweigh the losses of animals. By only using this point, I think it is strong enough to convince us to believe that animal research is justifiable.
Civic Literacy: It is pretty obvious that animal research has been bringing society huge benefits. The results of animal research can save thousands of human lives. For example, “genetic engineering that is likely to have an impact in the near future involves transforming animals to become carriers of human organs for human transplants” which might be able to save thousands of people who die each year while waiting on queues for human organs. Inevitable, society is also affected by the down side of animal research. A lot of animals are misused every year in some insignificant experimentation.
Science literacy: Animal research is essential in a lot of fields of science, especially in medical science and psychological science. The outcomes of animal research bring valuable information to science. For example, “genetic research involving animals’ promises new treatments for diseases that previously were thought to be intractable defects in the human condition. AIDS research proceeds apace, with animal research playing a crucial role. [âÂ?¦] Cloning of animals is another scientific breakthrough holds out the prospect of genetic replacement as the solution to some presently incurable medical disorders” (89). The remarkable discoveries on animal research are pushing the development of science forward.
Value Literary: Both authors in the articles have used different values to defend their sides. Singer uses ethical angle to tell us that it is unethical to use animals in experimentation. Doing animal research is also to tend to commit speciesism, which is similar to racism. Frey uses utilitarianism perspective. He compares the outcomes of using animals in experimentation and the losses of animals in research and shows us that the benefit of doing animal research greatly outweighs the costs. By using two different values, both authors tries to reach the goal that whether using animal in experimentation is justifiable.
Both authors give reasonable arguments about should animal research in psychology be eliminated? It does seem to commit speciesism by using animal in experimentation. It is also a fact that a lot of animals are misused in researches by experimenters; however, the benefits of animal research have been bringing society huge benefits; thousands of hundreds of human’s lives are being saved by the results of animal research. Every coin has both sides; using animals in research does have its downsides, but compared with the benefits it brings to us, it is too small to be mentioned. I also want to suggest that every country should set up “a animal-use committees specifically in charge with examining whether or not the significance of such experiments are sufficient to justify the use of animals (79)”. Maybe that is the best solution for the recent arguments.
