Comments due by 11:59pm Sunday, November 10, 2013.
On Blackboard you will find an article by R.G. Frey on the use of animals in research. You can also find the paper here.
Here's one passage from his paper:
"If we are going to use animals, the argument that I have raised in this essay seems to require that we at least be prepared to use certain humans as well, depending upon their respective qualities of life. Can we bring ourselves to do this?"
Read the entire paper closely. What do you make of his arguments? Where do they go wrong, if anywhere?
Engage each other in good conversation. Be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from each other!
In R.G. Frey’s article “Justifying Animal Experimentation” he brings up the point that if we are going to use animals it seems to require that we at least be prepared to use certain humans as well, depending upon their respective qualities of life. Research has come so far and is soon to be at the breaking point of new scientific advancements. Cloning has become realistic rather that just science fiction and cures to cancers and other fatal diseases are becoming closer and closer to getting a cure. With all this so close in our future very few people would want to stop animal testing and stop the advancement of scientific research. However, most would also agree that animals should have a quality of life, and thus should not be abused or have any unnecessary suffering. Where Frey goes wrong is that he mentions that we have animals suffer rather than humans because the society would not allow testing to be done on humans. However, if this suffering so bad that humans should not endure it, then we should not have animals endure it, regardless of what the society wants.
ReplyDeleteMollie Backode
In the paper, I halfway agree but then I don't. I don't believe we should be using animals at all for any kinds of experiments, that it is unfair and unjust to go around testing, harming and killing animals with products that we intend on using on ourselves. I agree that whatever we intend on doing to animals we should also think about would we do it to humans as well. I mean, if you wouldn't do it to a human for fear of harming or even killing it wouldn't you think there is something wrong with our logic when it comes to doing openly to animals? But when we really think about it one person who doesn't agree with animal testing is not going to make a difference, so if there is one thing that I would have to agree on it would be the 3R approach. Try to find new ways to test on the animals that won't harm or kill them but also find new animals that are what you would call "lower on the totem pole" that we don't use for everyday animals or food source. But also while we are doing this, let's figure out new ways to test all together if possible to prevent us from having to use animals and humans altogether.
ReplyDelete--Kiersten Johnson
I some what agree with what he is saying but at the same time I don't. like I agree that we have came a long way with animal testing and that if we didn't have animal testing that we wouldn't have anywhere near what we have accomplished at this point. but at the same time things are becoming more and more complex with the human race and it calls for more than just testing it on animals. we cannot get any closer to perfect results than to test on humans. they always say that there is a place for everyone and everything on this earth and that everyone will serve a purpose. I know that it sounds terrible but humans are born, grow up, get a job, and then work the rest of their life to serve a purpose and keep the world going. for severely and cognitively impaired humans, yes they are born and grow up but they don't go out and get a job to produce anything. my opinion on it is if they are at the point where they are brain dead and cannot feel what is happening and will never remember anything why not use them for testing? they have perfectly good organs that function the same as a regular human. By not using them the organs are wasting and went without a purpose being served. by us getting past the fact that they are humans and testing on them would be beneficial. they cannot feel and remember anything where animals can feel the pain and they can remember what is going on. I like where he uses the comparison between setting a rabbit on fire and a kid. the moral of the act is determined by pain and suffering. if we are so worried about how the animals are going through the pain and suffering of testing then why not use someone who cannot feel the pain and remember anything? it also doesn't make sense to me when he says that we will not test on humans even if they consent to it. why not? they are offering use their body to get the closest results possible to what we need. I like when he says that using humans is not replacing the use of animals but to start using them. I feel like he is getting to the point where he wants us to use humans for the important ones where we know we cannot get the same result with animals.
ReplyDeleteChelsea
In R.G. Frey's paper, he brings up a lot of good points. He talks about abolitionists a lot. In my opinion, I don't necessarily like the fact that animals are being tested on right now, but I think it's a better option than the latter. The latter being actual human lives. New technology is developing everyday and I think very soon, their are going to be more options available to us so maybe one day we won't have to use animals to experiment. As I said in my BAP, I really don't think abolitionists realize how much these experiments are helping right now in the medical field. As Frey said, maybe the breakthroughs take a while to actually happen, but when they do, they are really helpful, such as with cancer research. I just don't think a lot of them realize r even thought about what would happen in the medical fields and with research if we took all of that away. Would they be happier if we used actual human beings instead of animals? It's a lot to think about.
ReplyDeleteCristin S.
When I think of this argument I think about how we start with the animals but just as soon as we think we have the right stuff, we do move on to human candidates. Just like with everything else we have it has to start somewhere and if it started on us then how would we be able to watch how things happen because of how long our life span is. We would be able to see all the affects on people, so we use animals with shorter life spans to see if what we are using is going to work then slowly we work our way up to animal with longer life spans and then finally to people to see if it will work long term and stop whatever we are trying to stop or if we have to start all over with something new. but with the with the other steps in between and wont have to start all other.
ReplyDelete~Sara Hannon
R.G. Frey does bring up many strong arguments throughout his paper. Testing on animals is a very controversial subject that people either agree with or don't. I personally feel that what is being done to animals is wrong, but it is a procedure that has been done for years and until there is an alternative solution found, test will continue to be ran on them. In my opinion I do agree that the test ran on animals should be considered to be ran on humans as well. This would really make people think twice about how the test where done. If there people feel that it is okay to conduct these test on humans, then in theory it would provide safer tests being ran on the animals. Also if the test where ran on humans, it would lead to better results. The nonhuman animals being used only give us "similar" results, where as humans are anatomically identical other humans which allows for truer results. We usually use nonhuman animals because of their shorter lifespan as well. Animals like rats reproduce and reach maturity quickly which allows us to conduct more experiments in a shorter period of time. Humans have a lob life span and would make it very difficult to conduct as many experiments as it would with nonhuman animals.
ReplyDelete-Cameron K.
This argument is surrounded around the question of the characteristics of both humans and non-human animals. What makes one or the other more important? Which characteristics define who is important? I think it should not just be based on characteristics but I also think it should be based on the consent of people and how the scientific research is going. If we are getting good results with the processes we are currently using then why change? But on the other hand there should be more restrictions on what is done and who it is done too. Frey talks about doing certain things to humans would be inhumane even if the person gave consent. I think if the person gave consent there should be no reason to believe that the person is doing wrong to the other. Medical research should be applied to both animals and humans, but with some restrictions. There is no reason for pointless suffering, but every test that is done there is something that is tells us, and leads us to being one step closer to fixing the problem.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa T.
I feel that test run on humans would produce more useful results. The 3R approach is supposed to support "humane" research, but since it continues to support using animals in research, it is not humane. Replacing higher animals with lower animals does not take animals out of the research equation at all. I do not see the point of replacing so called "higher" animals with "lower" ones. Animals are still animals. Humans should be used or a way to conduct research without using a living being should be developed.
ReplyDelete-Monica T
In regard to animal testing, I agree that there have been many major medical breakthroughs that would not have occurred without it. I also agree that research would be better and more productive if experimentation was completed on humans. I understand that animals are relatively cheap to find and they have a much shorter lifespan than humans. This allows results to be collected and analyzed in a much shorter time span than with a human subject. However, I believe that humans should be slowly introduced into the experimentation, depending on their quality of life. Those with a poor quality of life, such as the severely cognitively impaired, should be able to be experimented on. Many of those people do not even realize they are going through the motions of life and would probably not even realize they are being experimented on. Like Mollie, I agree that if animals are allowed to suffer, then humans should be allowed to as well. Especially since we are reaping all of the benefits to the animals' pain and suffering.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Frey's essay on the experimentation of animals, he makes many different theories and ideas as to why we should justify using animals in research and experimentation, but he makes one statement in the beginning that I believe is the best way to answer all the questions and hopefully make everyone happy. His statement is the 3 R's of using animals for research. These R's are as follows: to refine experiments to reduce lose of life, reduce the number of animals used and the number of experiments in general, and replace the animals with non animal models or to replace "higher" animals with "lower" ones. I think this is the best way to satisfy many people, but for me, I have a little different opinion. With being a Christian, we can only take research and experimentation so far to where we are not playing God. If we go to the point where we are cloning people to keep them alive, or making designer children then we are going to far and need to let go and let God determine where our death will be not us.
ReplyDelete--Matt Pulter
Frey's essay he talked about the 3R approach and how its suppose to be the humane way of doing experiments and research; but them still using a lower animal isn't humane even with some restrictions. Receiving the consent of humans makes it better and more humane but still needs to have it's restrictions. Replacing higher educated animals and replacing them with lower animals does not make it humane.
ReplyDelete--Michelle F.
In reading this paper I agreed with many of the benefits that Frey suggests come from animal research. WIth that being said I do not agree with all of his views regarding the 3R method of research. One of his "R's" stands for replacing higher beings with lower standing animals. I agree with what Michelle had to say as replacing these animals does not make it any more humane or ethically correct. However, I personally feel that the sacrifice of lesser beings is not only required for the continuation of the human race but beneficial to the world as a whole. The positives far outweigh the negatives in my opinion when it comes to animal research
ReplyDelete-Josh P.
Even though I am opposed to most animal experimentation (at least for things such as make-up and other nonessential desires), after reading this article, I have come to identify with the "3R" (refine, reduce, replace) approach. It makes logical sense. It would cut down on animal suffering by numerous things; number, type of experiment, and the replacement of animals capable of suffering with animals that are less capable. I also agree that animal life may not have the same value as normal, adult human life. However, if research must take place, maybe using humans that are severely mentally handicapped, whom may have a low quality of life, instead of an animal with the possibility of a high quality of life with the same level of consciousness, is okay. If looked at from a purely logical and scientifical standpoint, it makes complete sense. However, society does not look at things in such a way, and so the majority of the population would strongly object to such a thing.
ReplyDelete