Animal Experimentation: The Moral Issue By Robert M.

Numerous people have attempted to justify the use of such methods by putting down or rather, dismissing the animal as a creature lacking the mental capacities to be considered equals to that of a human being. In their book "Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issue" authors Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum say, "holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (104). He then goes on to explain that "animals do not have such moral capacities" (Baird 105). And as a result of this "we can't violate their rights because they have none" (Baird 105). Dismissing the animal as nothing more then an object may not seem like the most reasonable defense against the use of animals for testing

Perhaps giving animals the likeness of a machine is to far. However, the concept of animals only being able to learn from experience and not from teaching the way humans do helps serperate the two parties and further push the idea that we are different and should not hold the same rights. Another argument used by the supporters of animal testing is the notion of voluntary consent. Human beings have the mental capacity to personally volunteer themselves for experimentation for the advancement of modern medicine if they so desired. Animals, on the other hand, lack this mental capacity. As Baird put it "it's impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice" (106). Perhaps these arguments, or defenses may not be enough to sway or convince someone that animals should be used or at least to tolerate the usage of animals here in there in testing for the benefit of mankind. But what can not be disputed it studies and facts which are also used in order to defend the postion of an advocate for the use of animals in testing and

Author William Dudley illustartes this point by saying, "According to the pro-animal research organization Americans for Medical Progress, scientific discoveries helped by animal research have increased the average human life span by twenty-eight years since 1900" (87). twenty-eight years is nothing to scoff at. By extending the lives of humans by twenty-eight years animal research has cemented itself as a very benefical form of medical research. Who wouldn't want to live for another twenty-eight years? Or see their loved ones again for another few years? Even if this wasn't evidence enough author Leland Shaprio also provides a rather astonishing illustration further supporting the use of animal experimentation. Shaprio states, "The National Research Council spent three years and $315,000 studying whether animal research was necessary, because animals could now be replaced by artificial constructs and computer-generated methodology. The council concluded that "animal experiments are still critically important to further improvements in medicine and biomedical science"