Animal Research: An Ethical and Logical Issue

As the American public becomes more concerned with the welfare of animals and the web of ethical issues that the use of research animals creates, one type of animal research is becoming more scrutinized than the others: the use of chimpanzees for drug research and development. Two facilities in particular, the National Institutes of Health and the New Iberia Research Center, have taken much fire opposing their apparent breach of a sixteen year-old sanction on the breeding of more chimpanzees solely for medical research. Although Americans have generally become more concerned with the ethical treatment of research animals, the testing of new drugs on animals is seen by many as a must for simply one reason: it is less ethical to test the new drugs on humans.

In my personal opinion, animal research should continue to be sanctioned.

Albeit animal research seems cruel, it is indeed more ethical to test new medicines and drugs on an animal than on a fellow human being. The side effects of new medicines need to be discovered before people are allowed to use the medicine; this is something everyone can agree on. Being that the majority of people think that testing drugs with unknown side effects on people is unethical, a substitute is needed. Chimpanzees are the closest genetically related species to humans, possessing 48 chromosomes to the human 46. This makes the chimpanzee a vital tool to new medicine development. As I mentioned earlier, this practice may seem cruel, but it is a necessary cruelty. The amount of people’s lives that have been saved using drugs that have been developed via animal research serves as enough evidence that it should be continued. “Treatments for diseases such as diabetes and polio were made possible through animal research, the researchers said, and animals are currently being used in hepatitis-, HIV- and stem cell-related research, among others” (Discovery News, Para. 4). People on the fence about the issue or those blatantly opposed to the issue should ask themselves the following question: “Would I rather new medicines with unknown side effects be tested on myself or an animal?”

In current times, animal research is being met with less and less popular support. A recent study by Princeton University shows that the American public is becoming more opposed to animal research as time goes on. The study revealed that 67% of Americans said they would be more inclined to donate to charitable health organizations that never fund animal research than a charitable health organization that did fund such research. The study also showed the trend of younger people being more opposed to animal research in comparison to the older generations.

In the article “Breeding Contempt”, the author is not opposed to animal research, as long as the animals are treated as ethically as possible. A claim is made that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), headquartered in Maryland, has not enforced a moratorium imposed in 1995, which prohibits the breeding of chimpanzees specifically for medical research. The moratorium was enacted in 1995 for financial reasons, predominately because “it costs at least $300,000 to support a single chimp for its lifetime” (Breeding Contempt, Para. 6). The author claims that the American public supports this type of research in faith that the animals being used are treated as humanely as possible, and that we the people deserve more honesty from the institutions conducting said research. The Humane Society has presented evidence of 137 chimp births at the NIH facility to the US Senate committee that appropriates funds to the NIH, which forced the New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) to confess the births of the chimps. The revelation of this new information has decreased the amount of public support of medical research on chimpanzees in the United States, due to the research facility’s lack of compliance with the sanction of breeding more animals.

The author also implies that because the NIH has responded to recent inquiries into the matter with silence that the NIH must be guilty and trying not to shoot themselves in the foot so to say. Has anyone thought that the NIH has not responded to the further questions because they have nothing further to say about the matter? It is quite possible that they have reported all the information they have, or are tired of being harassed about the issue.

To conclude, animal research is a controversial topic, as it has been for some time and will continue to be. However, this practice is one of importance to the well being of mankind, as it has produced vaccines and treatments for many, many diseases that puzzled the medical community for years on end. Imagine what our world today would be like had no vaccine for polio been developed. There would be many more sick people in the world today had a vaccine not been developed, and there would have been no vaccine developed without animal research.







"Animal Experimentation Public Opinion. An Update." Of Human and Non-Human

Animals. 04 Apr. 2008. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://globalphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/04/animal-experimentation-public-opinion.html>.



"US Researchers Defend Animal Testing : Discovery News." Discovery News: Earth,

Space, Tech, Animals, History, Adventure, Human, Autos. 21 Feb. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://news.discovery.com/animals/animal-research-medical-defended-110221.html>.