Experimenting on Animals Flashcards
How many scientific procedures involving animals were there in the UK in 2016?
3.94 million
What are the 2 main animals tested on (+ percentages)
Mice - 60%
Fish - 14%
How many protected species are tested on? (Percentage and number)
1%
That’s still 18000 animals
What are the 5 thresholds for pain in the UK (+ Descriptions)
1) Sub-threshold (did not cause detectable pain and suffering)
2) Non-recovery (Under anaesthesia)
3) Mild (minor pain and suffering)
4) Moderate (detectable levels of pain and suffering)
5) Severe (major departure from animals health)
What is the majority threshold of pain in animal testing (+ percentage)
Mild at 46%
Summarise the Royal Society;s statement re. animal testing from 2015
Every medical discovery made in the last century (HIV, cancer treatments) has either indirectly or directly involved testing on animals, including veterinary medicine.
What’s the argument from benefit?
(P1) If non consensual, harmful experiments on non-human animals allow us to make beneficial discoveries that would not otherwise be possible, then they are morally permissible
(P2) Some non-consensual, harmful experiments on non-human animals allow us to make beneficial discoveries that would not otherwise be possible
(C) Some non-consensual, harmful experiments on non-human animals are morally permissible
What is Frey’s approach, providing compromise (2002)?
1) Experiments involving animals should be refined to involve minimal suffering for the animals involved
2) We should reduce the number of animals used
3) We should replace animals with non-animal models when possible
What are the responses to the argument from benefit?
1) Deny P2
2) Amend argument, swapping animals with humans
Expand on the denying of P2 of the argument from benefit
Could attempt to argue that it is possible to achieve the benefits without animals
BUT this would be denying empirical fact, concluded by many scientists including the Royal Society and the UK Department of Health
Expand on the admendment against the argument from benefit
Replace the non-human animals with just animals and suddenly it seems inhumane… which means we should reject it
BUT We could argue that non-human animals have a lower moral standing than us… Frey (2002) said that we should further the argument to state that we can use animals as a means to an end but not humans
What’s wrong with the argument that animals have a lower moral standing than us? (2)
1) It’s speciesism. As Peter Singer, a utilitarian who argued for animal equality argued, we are no better than animals and we have no right to discriminate against them just because we assume that they’re better
2) Any argument we use to justify our higher moral standing (consciousness, intellectual capabilities, etc) could also be applied to some humans (babies, coma patients) and we’d never test on them, so why are animals any different? (BUT Frey accepts that we might need to test on some humans)
Who is the argument from justice by?
Choe-Smith
What is the argument from justice? (3)
- Principle of justice is being violated here on a large scale
- Animals are currently assigned disproportionate level of the burdens and the benefits from animal testing
- Some research only benefits humans, which is unjust to the animals, in this case we should use humans instead.
What does Choe Smith appeal to in the argument from justice?
The principle of justice written in the Belmont report
This was based on Nazi concentration camps etc, and was a principle introduced to address the unequal and unjust distribution of burdens and benefits of research
Talk about microchips replacing animals
(Date)
(Details & organs)
(What they do)
In March 2017
Was announced that scientists have developed 10 human organ chips
Mimic the function of human organs such as lungs and kidneys, could replace animal testing
