Question

Animal Testing

weekend demonstrations in Oxford. Both groups pledged to step up campaigns which have already resulted in death threats aimed at advocates of animal testing and panic buttons installed at the home of a leading provivisection protester.

Pro-Test, the group which organised the Oxford rally of scientists, students and patients, plans a march in London which it hopes will draw 5,000 supporters. A spokesman for Speak, the animal rights group campaigning against a new animal research laboratory in Oxford, said the Pro-Test demonstration had left it “fired up” to take tougher action.

Spokesman Mel Broughton said: “They should be worried, not because they are in any danger of violence, but because they have fired us up even more against them and the university.” . . .

Many researchers stayed away from the march, fearing reprisals against them and their families. Professor Tipu Aziz, a leading neurosurgeon, said: “This country has thousands of researchers paralysed by fear. That’s a travesty of democracy.” . . .

A spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, Robin Webb, yesterday described the Pro-Test marchers as “irrelevant.”

“The ALF supporters will completely ignore this protest group and will continue targeting institutions and companies which are directly involved in building the proposed facility,” he said.

The Medical Research Council’s chief executive, Colin Blakemore, described the Pro-Test demonstration as “immensely gratifying. For a long time, we have needed this kind of collective response. The people want this thuggery and nastiness off the streets of Oxford.”

Which side in this conflict do you sympathize with more? Why? Suppose you are a member of Pro-Test. How would you argue in favor of scientific animal testing? Say you are an ALF supporter.What arguments could you make for the banning of most (or all) animal testing? Is either side justified in using violence or the threat of violence to further its cause? Why or why not? Based on the Categorical Imperative

Answer 1

Which side in this conflict do you symphathize with more? Why

The arguments of both the sides are justifiable in their own way. But absolute banning of Animal testing as propounded by ALF supporters cannot be accepted. Also Animal testing by Pro-test group cannot be accepted in totality and unconditionally.

Suppose you are a member of Pro-Test. How would you argue in favor of scientific animal testing?

Animals are used for testing and research to understand how living things work and respond and eventually the understanding gained can be utilized for the benefit of both human and animal lives like protection from diseases and measures for better safety. Animals can be exposed with the treatments that cannot be done on human. For example the study on maternal nutritional deficieny and birth defects etc. The animal tests should not be turned down just by sympathizing animals, because as long as the tests are conducted by following the code of ethics put forward by agencies like ASPCA (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), it will be done in a way that will not frighten or hurt the subject.

Say you are an ALF supporter.What arguments could you make for the banning of most (or all) animal testing?

An ALF supporter will have the following arguments for banning animal testing

1.There exists possibilities for injurious after-effects for various intoxicating drugs consumed during the tests

2. Many times there will be lack of adeuqate facilities which will result in the breakdown of the physical and psychological health of the animal at a later stage

3. Harmful procedures imposed on animals cannot be justified interms of the knowledge gained from the study or reserach.

Is either side justified in using violence or the threat of violence to further its cause? Why or why not?

Either side is not justified, usage of violence will not provide solution to the problem. Further attempt to prevent violence to animals should not eventually lead to in violence among the human beings, who are much more advanced species compared to animals.

Animal Testing has to be conucted under the guidance and monitoring of un-influencial, strong governement body with support of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals