Animal Experimentation 2

JACKSON 1 Michael W. Jackson A02-92-6779 Warren 11B 17 March 2000 Animal Experimentation: Survival of the Fittest The progressive nature of humanity has brought itself to a crossroads. The dilemma that humanity faces today concerns the extent of moral consideration. The question is then posed: should animals receive consideration equal to that of humanity and with, this equal consideration should practices such as animal experimentation and factory farming be stopped? This decision, however, fails to acknowledge the basic idea of "survival of the fittest" and the benefits of animal experimentation. The survival of the species is the direct concern of all animals, be it a conscious or subconscious directive. Humanity, however, in its desire to be morally progressive wishes to elevate itself above the other animals and in turn disregard the natural law of survival. With this regard a minority of the population feel that the benefits of animal experimentation in no way outweigh the pain and suffering incurred by the lab animals. Though the loss of animal life is terrible, the loss of millions, thousands or even one human life is more deplorable if science and knowledge can prevent it. Animal experimentation can bring great advancements in medical science and furthermore in the survival of the human race. Parkinson's disease is a disabling infliction that causes tremors and mental impairment which effects over one million people in the United States. The treatment for Parkinson's until 1989

JACKSON 2 was L-dopa, which was unable to stop the advancement of the disease and could increase the severity of the tremors. With the aide of animal experimentation a new drug has been approved called deprenyl which slows the progression of Parkinson's disease (Langley 50). The field of animal experimentation has led to advances in the continuation of human life and is a significant necessity to the continued survival of man. It is unfortunate that any being had to suffer in the name of medicine, but in the greater scheme of things, these animals have provided a great service to humanity. Animal experimentation does however have its weaknesses and it is clear that one needs to maintain concern with unwarranted experimentation. The classic example is cosmetic research. Though the industry states that the research is only for product safety concerns many find this research frivolous.

The occurrence of

cosmetic testing has decreased significantly in recent years (87%) due to the negative press associated with such endeavors (MRMC 1). A second area of useless experimentation occurred with reference to the link between smoking and lung cancer. The link between lung cancer and smoking was observed in humans and it was decided to refer these findings to the field of animal experimentation. When the experiment was then conducted with animal subjects the link was not evident. Because the laboratory did not yield conclusive results the move to educate humans about the harmful effects of smoking was delayed many years (2). This is often the case with carcinogenic compounds and animal models that cannot reproduce the human reaction and in turn wounds the progression of science. These examples of frivolous animal experimentation are not supported today.

JACKSON 3 These examples should however not tarnish the beneficial research produced through animal experimentation. The foremost supporter of equal consideration of animals is Peter Singer. Singer uses the Utilitarian approach to the world to dictate a need to extend equal consideration to animals on the basis of suffering. The principle behind this claim is that in the Utilitarian approach to life, the goals of society should be to promote the greatest pleasure or cause the least pain (Rachels 103). Based upon the structure of a utilitarian society Singer feels that the ability to suffer leads to equal consideration of animals. Singer bases his argument on the fact that animals can feel pain and suffer equal to that of humans. The Singer approach is probably the most significant form of the debate over the rights of animals. The focus of the debate concerns itself with the conflicting ideas that one either uses animals for benefit or one grants equal consideration to animals and in turn does not use them as means to an end (i.e. find a vaccine through experimentation) but treats them as equals. Singer in his approach however neglects many hidden weaknesses that undermine the strength of his overall statement. The argument against animal testing is understandable, but not truly justified. The first significant issue not addressed by Singer is the extent to which the new level of consideration should apply to all forms of life. If the capacity to suffer would be the determining factor of this decision, then the extension of consideration should run its course to the outmost reaches of the animal kingdom. This would include such entities as bacteria, which most of humanity would find absurd and not readily acceptable. Singer, in further review of his work, does not address the field

JACKSON 4 of insects, as the insect is an entity that in the moral mindscape of humanity does not maintain a level of significance with regards to that of a dog, cat, or monkey. This neglect for a possible addition to humanity's moral perspective lends itself to a clear division of concern based upon an animal's classification. As Singer is concerned with ending an arbitrary distinction as a means to segregate animal concerns over a humans he fails by neglecting insects. Singer further weakens his argument when he states that there is no need to interrupt the cycle of nature and end the fighting amongst the animals as it is just a cycle in the circle of life. Singer repeats this idea, as he never states in his work that it is wrong to kill an animal, as it may always become necessary through self-preservation to end the life of another animal (Singer 35). The final avenue of support to the position that natural law must reign supreme is found in the evidence gathered by Darwin and his overall statement that evolution is the survival of the fittest. Through the research of Darwin it is possible to observe the process of natural selection. The laws of nature dictate that an organism will survive if it is able to adapt readily to its environment. The process of natural selection observed by Darwin on Galapagos Island is the fundamental evidence to the inherent process of nature and of life itself. Humanity has followed this natural law throughout time and has adapted to many climates and regions of the earth. Humanity, however, in its interest to become greater than the animals, desires to leave its ancestral roots and instincts of survival in hopes of becoming a pure society.

If humanity were to leave behind its natural instincts, inherent in

basic animal survival, evolution itself would remove humanity from the earth as it

JACKSON 5 has failed to maintain the fundamental importance of survival. It is a fundamental outcome of the process of evolution that if one species forgets the nature of life and its principles, it is doomed to extinction. The progression of humanity, which is echoed in this paper, is a natural progression of moral concern, however it is a means by which the present may forget the past and with a removal of the past comes an end upon itself. The human goal to bring equal consideration to animals and to end the experimentation and overall use of animals is one that goes against the laws of nature. This position is supported through the negligence of Peter Singer in animal liberation, as well in the overall beneficial nature of animal experimentation, and furthermore in the review of the Darwinian principles of survival. The way to return society to a preprogressive state would be to destroy all of humanity's creations and return it to a nomadic state. This return to the past would right the process of nature in all respects, as society would again have to hunt and survive in nature to a greater degree than today. It would be foolish for society to ignore technology and the possibility of new treatment for millions in the name of animals that can be easily bred in a laboratory and today even cloned. Those that believe animals are equivalent to humans in spirit and worth are not forced to take the medicines that vivisection has produced. However, if their children were to contract polio, will they let them suffer and die because the medicine discovered was tested in animals? Is an animal worth that much? In the grand plot of things, not really. The utilitarian approach to life does support this mentality for if the use of animals to survive

JACKSON 6 brings the greatest good to humanity it is then clear that the greatest good has been achieved.

JACKSON 7 Works Cited Langley, Gill. Animal Experimentation. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1989 Medical Research Modernization Committee. A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation. http://www.mrmcmed.org/critcv.html, 2/20/1999 Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill College, 1999 Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon books, 1990