Paradox Of Animal Research

The great paradox of animal research is that we use utilize animal subjects for research because it is thought that they behave and respond in biologically similar ways to humans. UBC uses this "remarkable similarity" as justification for their use (UBC). If this were not true, then the majority of animal medical or behavioural studies would be invalidated and needless. The irony lies in remembering why we use animals and not humans for such tests; after all, what is more biologically similar to a human than another human. When we remember that researchers often justify animal use for these often painful and immoral studies because they are different than humans we are left at an impasse.
Matthew Calarco examines this paradox of human/animal

It suggests a non-human animal is only morally relevant if they are comparable to a human. This approach leaves room for the discrimination of animals that do not remind of us as significantly as ourselves. For example, one could use this position to argue that researches should not test on monkey's because they have been proven to be so similar to humans, but that rats are a good alternative because they have not been studied in regard to human similarity. Or in UBC's case that invertebrate animals are better for educational use purposes because the presence of a vertebrae brings the animal closer to human biology. Additionally, this logic could be used to argue the reverse, that monkeys would make wonderful test subjects because their similarity to humans would reduce the margin for error in the predictive value. Either way, the similarity approach furthers an anthropocentric ideology. For Calarco the argument of difference being the significant factor in granting animals' rights is also invalid because any difference between species is merely a difference in degree of the characteristic (42). Additionally, the human/animal divide in the difference approach assumes that all humans

This stance is not to disregard any positive work that the welfare position may contribute to the well-being of animals but to say that it is not a long-term solution. While if properly enforced rules and regulations can help eliminate the quantity of animal use studies and animal suffering there is undeniably no way to ethically continue this practice. It is unfair to end an abolition discussion without acknowledging that there are alternatives. Although this paper did not aim to discuss these alternatives it is important to mention their existence. These alternatives, that would fall under the "replacement" goal of UBC's, include in-vitro study techniques, using simulators, mannequins and virtual settings for demonstration and instruction, human volunteers and self-experimentation (Ravindran et al, 1451). I invite those interested in a more in depth look into these techniques to read Ravindran et al.'s "Reduction, replacement and ethics of animal use in bio-science research and education" which dives deeper into each of the aforementioned alternatives and argues that the results from these methods are much better and more applicable for human use (1451). Or Reardon's "Organs-on-chips" go mainstream which explores the rising research technique of using a "organ-on-chip", which has found success in medical and physiology studies. The adoption of these alternatives can eliminate the need