Some of the greatest breakthroughs in medical science were made

as a result of research using live animals. In this essay, I will

examine whether animal experimentation is still necessary for
medical progress. I will then justify the case for treating animals to
different moral standards from humans.
People who oppose the use of animals in medical experiments argue
that there are alternative options available to scientists. They refer
to the use of human tissue grown in laboratories or the use of
computer programs which model the effects of chemicals on human
biology. They also cite the fact that penicillin is poisonous to guinea
pigs in order to suggest that animal research data are not
transferable to humans. Their argument is that animal research is
not necessary for modern medical progress.
The suggestion that animal experimentation can be replaces by
alternatives is highly selective. First of all, it downplays the true
significance of past medical breakthroughs. Vaccines against
diseases like TB, diphtheria and cholera were developed following
animal experiments. Treatment for diabetes became possible after
the discovery of insulin in dogs in the 1920s. Secondly, it ignores the
fact that major advances are still being made thanks to research on
animals. Medicines for breast and prostate cancers were developed
in the 1990s as a result of experiments on mice and rats. Animal
research has also helped scientists develop antiretroviral drugs for
HIV, which enable sufferers to live long and productive lives. These
examples show that animal research is driving important progress in
medical science.
It is also important to realize that medical research does not use
animal experiments as a first option but only when there is no
alternative and only when the potential benefits are genuinely lifechanging. So, for example, the two main forms of research which
opponents mention computer modeling and in vitro use of human
tissue are already widely used. If researchers want to undertake
research using animals, they have to justify their request on the
grounds that: a) there is no alternative to using animals; b) the
science has the potential to bring important medical benefits; and c)
the research will use as few animals as possible and will keep
suffering to an absolute minimum. Government regulations now
ensure that modern medical research only turns to animal
experimentation as a last resort and for life-changing research.
The final point to look at is the moral argument. Opponents argue
that causing suffering to animals for the sake of medical progress is
immoral. Yet, in many other areas, society accepts that there is a
common-sense difference between the moral rights of animals and
humans. For example, in the UK people consume 2.5 billion animals
every year as food. This is nearly 1.000 times the number of animals

used in medical research. It is also estimated that two million

rodents, such as rats and mice, are killed each year in order to
prevent the spread of disease. Given that society accepts morality
of killing animals for these purposes, it cannot be argued that
animal experimentation is immoral when its purpose is to find cures
for the most devastating and debilitating diseases on the planet.
In conclusion, therefore, it is evident that animal research should
continue to be available as an option to medical research. It is true
that scientists have developed many alternative research methods
that are widely used and have significantly reduced the number of
animal experiments. However, it is equally clear that alternative
methods are not appropriate for all areas of research. At the heart of
the debate is a fundamental moral issue. If death and terrible
suffering among millions of humans can be alleviated by
experiments, which cause suffering to animals, is that morally
acceptable? In the light of societys wider moral view of animals, the
case for animal research can be firmly supported.