Research Paper On Animal Testing
While animals in research are often killed because the experiment requires it (e.g., because tissues are needed for postmortem examination) or because the animals are simply no longer needed, some animals are killed because the experiment involves the inﬂiction of harm causing intractable suffering.
For this subgroup of animals, it should not be assumed that because their death releases them from suffering, it is therefore not harmful.
“Unequal moral consideration” (UC) and utilitarian views would permit some harmful animal research, but with signiﬁcant restrictions and qualiﬁcations that go far beyond the status quo.
These categories are suffering, conﬁnement, and death. Second, even if it does not cause suffering, it prevents the conﬁned animal from satisfying any number of “liberty-related” interests, such as interests in moving about, investigating new things in the environment, relaxing comfortably, playing, foraging, and so on (De Grazia 2002).
Suffering (deﬁned broadly here to include pain, anxiety, distress, and other aversive mental states) is a harm because it is bad in itself; it is unpleasant and aversive to the individual experiencing it. The harm of conﬁnement is especially signiﬁcant when animals are conﬁned in barren environments and/or environments preventing ample freedom of movement.
The moral relevance of harm to animals in research derives from the relevance of harm to morality more generally.
Essentially all ethical theories, as well as common morality, embrace a principle of nonmaleﬁcence, which holds that we ought not to harm others (harm being generally deﬁned as setting back another’s interests or making them worse off).