动物实验英语辩论

Animal Experimentation

Summary:

Is

it

morally

acceptable

to

experiment

on

non-human

animals

to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings

For

many

centuries

people

have

experimented

on

animals.

There

are

two

main

reasons

for

doing

this:

first,

to

find

out

more

about

the

animals

themselves, and, secondly, to test substances and procedures to see

if they are harmful (with a view to deciding whether or not they can

be

used

on

human

beings).

In

the

second

category

fall

cosmetic

products as well as medicines and surgical techniques. There is a

growing

consensus

that

it

is

not

acceptable

to

test

cosmetic

products

on animals. This debate is about whether we should experiment on

animals

for

scientific

and

medical

purposes.

The

debate

about

the

pros

and cons of animal experimentation (or 'vivisection') is one that

elicits very strong emotions: animal rights activists have resorted

to trespass, violence, death threats, and hunger strikes in their

single- minded (and sometimes illegal) mission to end this practice.

Pros

Cons

Experiments on animals should be

Animals

have

the

right

to

be

considered

on

a

case-by-case

treated

as

beings

of

value

in

basis.

The

proper

principle

to

themselves,

not

as

the

means

to

apply,

however,

is

that

the

human

ends;

this

principle

must

be

reduction

of

human

suffering

is

our

applies in order to guarantee the

first priority and the prevention

end

of

cruelty

to

animals.

The

of

animal

suffering

or

death

is

application

of

this

principle

secondary to that (although still

means

that

animals

should

never

be

important). So that if there is a

experimented

upon

whatever

the

decent chance that an experiment

potential

gain

for

humanity.

To

will

result

in

an

important

medical

infect

monkeys

with

the

AIDS

virus

breakthrough

that

will

reduce

or

to

expose

rodents

to

toxic

human suffering and death then it

chemicals and radiation is simply

is

justifiable

to

allow

animal

not

acceptable,

whatever

the

suffering. Animal experimentation

supposed benefits.

is

the

(sometimes

distasteful)

means to much greater ends.

Although in principle it is more

In

practice,

as

everyone

knows,

important

to

reduce

human

animals are not routinely treated

suffering that to prevent animal

well

by

animal

experimenters.

suffering,

in

practice

it

is

Apart from the fact that millions

possible

(and

absolutely

right)

to

of

animals

die

each

year

in

keep

animal

suffering

to

an

experiments, others are often not

absolute

minimum.

Animal

adequately anaesthetised and are

experimenters

should

aspire

to

the

abused

by

handlers

and

highest

levels

of

animal

welfare

in

experimenters.

It

is

idealistic

to

their

laboratories,

using

suppose

that

this

will

ever

stop

as

as

society

endorses

anaesthetics

wherever

possible

and

long

keeping

animals

in

clean,

vivisection.

healthy

comfortable,

and

conditions.

In

short,

it

is

possible to experiment on animals

without being cruel to animals.

Past

experience

has

shown

what

In

fact

few

breakthroughs

have

been

invaluable

advances

can

be

made

in

made

as

a

result

of

animal

medicine

by

experimenting

on

experimentation

-

its

advocates

animals,

and

that

live

animals

are

have overstated its achievements.

the

most

reliable

subjects

for

There

has

been

a

catalogue

of

testing

medicines

and

other

errors

and

failures

in

animal

products

for

toxicity.

In

many

testing,

which

its

advocates

gloss

countries . the US and the UK) all

over;

as

many

as

half

the

drugs

that

prescription drugs must be tested

have

been

approved

in

the

US

and

the

on

animals

before

they

are

allowed

UK

after

animal

testing

have

onto

the

market.

To

ban

animal

subsequently had to be withdrawn

experiments would be to paralyse

because of harmful side-effects.