Los Angeles City College Animal Research Discussion

Animal Research Scenario

For this week’s scenario, the topic of discussion is about animal research. On one side you have Dr. Nguyen who believes that animal research is essential in savings lives and is too

important to just stop doing. On the other hand, Dr. Miller argues that animal testing should not

be abolished altogether but should be done with stricter regulations and in a way that does not cause any suffering to the animals. Regardless of how each side feels, the one thing they can both

agree on is that if we can do better than we should better.

Feelings on Scenario

This topic can be difficult to argue because we need to do research, but I believe that we do in fact need to do better to keep animals from suffering and being in pain. In this case, the

argument I feel is more ethical is answer B which summarizes Dr. Millers stance. Dr. Nguyen states, “human rights trumps animal rights.” I personally believe that we as humans should treat

animals with the same rights. In my opinion, animals are at a disadvantage because we are unable to communicate with them, but they still can feel pain like us. However, I must agree with Dr. Miller when he said that he is not in favor of getting rid of non-harmful and minimally harmful testing (Miller, n.d.). I do think that we should attempt to cause the least amount of pain

in animals so that we can continue to do research that can one day be beneficial to the human population, but in a way that will not cause animals to suffer.

Ethical Theories

From the perspective of Dr. Nguyen, I believe the ethical theory that closely relates to animal research is utilitarianism. The reason I believe this is because by testing on animals it allows us

to determine whether a product can be used for humans. By using animals, humans will not be subjected to any suffering or side effects that may occur from the products being tested. In addition, this allows us to be able to save a greater amount of people if the products being tested

are successful in animals. As for Dr. Millers position, I believe that deontology relates to the argument he has made. The reason is because deontology states that actions are performed not

because they’re right or wrong but because it is one’s duty (Pence, 2017). According to the Animal Welfare Act certain animals must be given the minimum standard of care and housing (Miller, n.d.). If animals are suffering and/or in pain, then we are in violation of this act. It is our duty to make sure that these animals are being treated with respect, so that we can further

advance in research.

Conclusion

In my opinion this is a tough ethical debate because I do think that animal research has

been useful in many of the things that we use today such as medicine. However, I feel that we must do better in the way we treat these animals. Either we need to start treating animals like we

would humans, pass a stricter act, or find an alternative way to conduct research. Animals are helpless in this situation, but as humans that can communicate, we should advocate for them. If would humans, pass a stricter act, or find an alternative way to conduct research. Animals are

helpless in this situation, but as humans that can communicate, we should advocate for them. If we ourselves could not go through what they go through, then we should think about how we go

about animal testing. It saddens me to see videos of how they are treated, and I hope that one day

we can find a better way that will not only keep them from suffering, but also help us when creating new products.