Right: this artwork was used by animal rights organisations in Britain to pose the question of what the reaction would be to a reversal of vivisection roles. Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Further implications
At the extreme end of the spectrum are those animal activists who argue that even though animal testing may result in benefits to human beings, the use of animals is not justified as they have as much right to the enjoyment of their existence as human beings. However, this is very much a minority view, with most animal rights spokespeople grudgingly acknowledging that some degree of animal testing is currently unavoidable.
There is currently little dispute that some classes of scientific research require the use of animals. What is contested is whether the balance is currently correct.
There are those who suggest that some of the animal testing being performed is unnecessary, either in that it is intended to achieve no clearly discernible benefit or because its ends could be achieved without using animals. Such criticisms raise questions about the efficacy of the ethics committees which monitor the use of animals for research purposes.
There is no simple consensus on this issue; beyond that both researchers using animal subjects and animal activists claim that they wish to see the distress caused animals kept to a minimum. Neither group appear to view 'distress' in the same manner, with animal activists inclined to adopt a far more conservative view of what is acceptable.
The future seems to lie in the direction of creating increasingly more effective alternatives to animal testing; however, currently, despite many advances in the development of alternatives, the use of animals also seems to be increasing.
One step toward overcoming this apparent contradiction may be to follow John Hadley's suggestion.
John Hadley is a Research Lecturer at the University of Western Sydney. He has argued that the use of animal testing has to be open to greater public scrutiny. He suggests, for example, that whenever the media reports on a particular scientific advance, it should also report on the extent of animal testing used in the development of this advance and also explain the manner in which these animals were used. It appears to be Hadley's belief that such public scrutiny would help to ensure that animal testing was conducted responsibly.