In the contemporary world, science has seen its better days. More and more scientific methods are used by scientists to explain and understand the world. Biological researchers have also been in the forefront of studying biological issues that surround us. As a result, non-human animals have been widely used for biological animal testing all over the world. It is estimated that around 10 to 100 million vertebrates are used globally for animal experiments every year. On the same note, it was estimated that 20 million rats were used only in the United States for experiments in 2001 (Hart, Wood, & Hart 35). Such a number of animals utilized in experiments raises questions on the issue of animal protection.
Many animal rights organizations sharply differ with studies in this area thus causing havoc in the field of biological testing (Hunnicutt 65). A reconciliation of both groups is paramount as such differences raise ethical issues and slow critical medical researches. Last Chance for Animals (LCA) and the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) are two main organizations that differ in the issue. Last Chance for Animals stands for complete abolition of the practise while FBR considers it legitimate and significant. This paper will examine differing points of view of Last Chance for Animals and The Foundation for Biomedical Research, come up with a feasible neutral zone for both, and explain the benefit of the said solution.
Last Chance for Animals stands for abolition of animal testing. It is the organization based in America, which fights for animals rights. It has been actively involved in the fight against animals being used in labs for experiments when still alive. One of the reasons put forward by the organization is ethical issues of the practise. The organization believes that it is unethical for humans to consider themselves so special that they can use other animals for laboratory tests without considering how they affect animals’ lives and living pattern in the ecosystem (Coster 45). The organization sticky states that a research organization that uses animal testing must comply with ethical issues that rise in their practice.
The organization also points out that animals, like humans, have rights. They have the right to life without being subjected to unnecessary and uncalled sufferings that they do not deserve. The animals’ rights are highly violated when animals are used for laboratory testing. They are limited in the length of their life as most of them scams to death during the practice (Hart, Wood, & Hart 45). The organization also argues that the exercise causes a lot of pain and suffering to the animals. Researchers use living animals to conduct their studies and most often they do not take the necessary precautions to limit the extreme pain that occurs during experiments. It happens so because they view animals as just specimens for experiment with no rights. Lastly, the organization believes that moral rights of animals are highly unacknowledged. Animals, just as humans, have feelings and desires. Their wish is to live longer without being influenced by anything or anybody. The organization feels that these moral rights and desires of animals are not taken into consideration (Hopkins 60). Additionally, the organization does not support the idea of euthanizing test animals. It is not right to call such a death a humane death. In fact, they refer to it as a murder action that should be prosecutable.
Customer's review on Sitejabber
"I love spending time on this site cause the design is sooo lovely! The services I've ordered were also on top."
The Foundation for Biomedical Research is a non-profit organization, the sole purpose of which is to campaign for acceptance of animal testing. This organization was founded in the midst of many animal rights groups arising to oppose the animal experiments practice. The organization views the act of using animals for testing as the biggest gift to the field of medicine and scientific researches. It has cited that in the recent years fewer scientific breakthroughs have been observed in the area of medicine and all because of campaigns against the use of animals in experiments (Knight 55).
According to the organization, many advancements and breakthroughs in medicine have been achieved due to animal testing (Hunnicutt, 65). The significant advances have included the discovery of blood transfusion possibilities, development of dialysis, vaccination, organs transplantation, and advancement in antibiotics. All these developments in the field of medicine could not come to light if animals were not used for experiments (Knight 25). The organization argues that it is concerned about rights of animals used, but also states that the associated benefits from the act of using animals supersede the importance of protecting lives of few animals. The organization believes that the number of animals utilized in experiments is far much less as compared to the number of animals that benefit from the use of drugs and medicine practice developed from animal tests.
The two organizations have their good share to fight and stand for. Last Chance for Animals, a non-governmental organization, represents animals. Animals cannot speak out, demonstrate or retaliate for heinous acts done against them, they stand at a point to be protected and cared for by others. Last Chance for Animal has taken this role to protect and uphold what they think is denied to animals (Coster, 65). On the other hand, the Foundation for Biomedical Research, also a non-governmental organization, stands for benefits associated with animal testing. The organization’s arguments have rationale. It is so clear that the field of medicine and veterinary has seen most of their successes through the use of animal testing.
The issues raised by the two organizations need to be addressed adequately. The question of using animals in experimenting is clearly the issue of concerns to many. It is also necessary for humans to conduct vast experiments in the field of medicine so as to protect the living and future generations (Hester and Harrison, 39). Considering the two, a fundamental neutral point has to be established, under which the two organizations can come up with a better ways to satisfy they issues. A neutral position will be best attained if focus on scientific biological experiments shifts from direct animal testing to alternative animal testing methods. If this is attained, then animals will experience less or no pain and suffering.
For alternative means to work, scientists must focus on alternative animals’ specimens. The most cited will be the use of animal specimens that are not alive. Experiments will not cause any pain and suffering to such animals (Hester and Harrison 34). Another way will be the use of organs-on-a-chip. These are scientifically made organs like liver, heart, lung or kidney that are not real organs, but mimic the behaviors of the actual organs. By studying the behavior of these organs, the same results as those gathered from animal testing are obtained. Other methods like the use of position emission tomography for brain scanning can also be applied.
The above solution will resolve the dispute that exists between Last Chance for Animals organization and the Foundation for Biomedical Research. Last Chance for Animals will be satisfied because their desire to see that animals are not used as experiment specimens is granted (Hopkins 44). On the other hand, the foundation for biomedical researches will also be satisfied as even though animals are not used as specimens for experiments more breakthroughs and studies on medicines have been fruitful and significant to humans as well as other living creatures.
In conclusion, the use of animals in experiments has given heated debates over the years. Organizations like Last Chance for Animals and many others have launched very powerful campaigns against heinous acts done to animals. The issue of more biological and medical discoveries is still of paramount importance to the human survival. It is thus imperative for other alternative means of biological testing to be developed so as to secure both animals welfare, as well as the medical field wellbeing.