BUS_401 Project

Part 1: Introduction

1.1.

Definition of the Problem:

1|Page

BUS_401 Project Animal testing has been a very controversial topic from the very beginning. It is the use of non-human animals for the purpose of scientific experimentation. In terms of ethics, the main issue in animal testing is simply that many experimental animals suffer in ways which are unnatural to them. 1.2. Objectives and Scopes of the Research: This debate is about whether we should experiment on animals for scientific and medical purposes, and if not then what can be done for the alternatives of animal testing. This research is being performed to find out whether the ethical issues raised by Animal Testing have significant importance or it can be ignored. And if the ethical issues have significant importance then what can be done to improve the condition. 1.3. Methodology of the Research Animal testing, whether right or wrong, good or bad, is something that we need to deal with. There are valid points to both sides of this debate, so people need to look at it from a moral standpoint. The research will also cover some major arguments against animal testing. We will discuss the arguments from two perspectives: one side will support the animal testing and the other will feel compassionate for animals. In our research, we will consider all these options and their applicability by putting them into the ethical framework of different theories. So we analyzed both Consequentialist and Non-Consequentialist theory as well as Traditional and Modern ethical theories. In order to analyze the situation and answer the ethical dilemma, we have used the following theories: • Egoism theory An action is morally right if the decision maker freely decides to pursue their short term desire or long term interests. • Utilitarianism theory An action is morally right if it results in highest number of pleasure for majority of the people or lowest number of pain for the majority of the people.
2|Page

BUS_401 Project • Caveat Emptor Caveat emptor or "Let the buyer beware" is a principle in commerce where the buyer assumes all of the risk. It is the consumers’ duty to know before buying and whether the organizations are unfairly benefiting from it or not. • Virtue Ethics Decision making depends on the character of the decision maker. ‘Good actions come from good persons’ – meaning that morally correct actions are those undertaken by actors with virtuous characters. • Ethics of Duties: Categorical Imperative According to German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), an action is morally right if it can pass through the three maxims (Categorical Imperative):    • Whether a certain action can be performed by everybody; Whether human dignity has been ignored, Whether the principles of certain action are acceptable to every human being.

Triple Bottom Line The triple bottom line captures an expanded spectrum of values and criteria for measuring organizational (and societal) success: economic, ecological and social.

Ethical Consumerism Ethical consumerism is the intentional purchase of products and services that the customer considers to be made ethically. This may mean with minimal harm to or exploitation of humans, animals and/or the natural environment.

We will analyze the arguments for and against animal testing and also the availability of other alternatives from a moral perspective by applying different traditional and contemporary theories.
3|Page

BUS_401 Project Part 2: Animal Testing in the Research Field 2.1. Experimenting on Animals 4|Page .

2. firstly to see if new drugs work against particular diseases. There are two main reasons for doing this: first. also known as animal experimentation or animal research.  Animals are infected with viruses such as HIV. New drugs are developed each day. Animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. 5|Page . 2. for example:  Harmful chemicals are injected into the joints of rats to produce arthritis. hepatitis and herpes. and in some cases cause a lot of pain. For many centuries people have experimented on animals.3.  A diabetes-like disease is produced by giving animals a chemical that damages the pancreas. they are tested on animals. Drugs that cure diseases are tested on animals by first giving the animal the disease and then administering the drug to see if the drug stops the disease. At the end of the experiments animals are nearly always killed.BUS_401 Project Animal testing. The use of animals as test subject in scientific research has provided spectacular improvements in our understanding of the humans. second. Drugs are tested on animals to see how much of the disease is cured by the drugs.2. Animal Studies to Discover New Drugs Animals are used in drug testing in 2 main ways. To see if a drug works. Before they can be tested on people. Long-term use of the drugs is also studied to see what conditions could arise in animals those are exposed to the drug for longer periods of time. diseases are deliberately produced in animals. In the second category fall cosmetic products as well as medicines and surgical techniques. to find out more about the animals themselves. Animal Testing for the safety of drugs Other drugs are tested on animals which are healthy to help determine side effects or problems that might come up with the drug. Obviously these diseases make the animals very sick. to test substances and procedures to see if they are harmful (with a view to deciding whether or not they can be used on human beings). is the use of non-human animals in experiments. and. drugs are also tested to know whether they will create problems during pregnancy. For example. and secondly to see if drugs are safe.

researchers want to discover if the products the manufacturer is selling will cause skin irritation. Animal testing in the cosmetic industry is especially done for makeup and soaps. if the makeup or other products will live up to the labels put on the products. put on the skin or come into contact with by a human. Makeup is tested on animals to help determine how long it lasts. nail polish. staining or poisoning when used on animals. These might include household cleaning products. hair spray. Rabbits are used largely for such processes to know the effect that is felt by the animal upon the application of the cosmetics. which might turn to adverse effects for humans. first of all. food products.6. Use of Animals in Genetic Testing 6|Page . Use of Animals in Product Testing Products. The reactions of these tests are recorded in order to discover adverse effects on the animals. chemicals and car products. Many biomedical breakthroughs have resulted from laboratory testing for the study of anatomical structures and their functioning. the animals are exposed to these products in the same way a human using the products might be exposed to them. In the tests. Many animals suffer and die in order to produce new versions of deodorant.5.4.BUS_401 Project 2. whether it rubs off and what colors the makeup produces. machinery products and anything else that might be inhaled. Some of the largest cosmetics companies use animals to test their products. and lots of other products. Animal Testing in Cosmetic Industry Animal testing is a common practice in the cosmetic industry. They then collect this information and use them to make assumptions about how the products will work on humans and how the products might affect humans. Second.7. smelled. animals are used for education and biomedical research. 2. other than drugs and cosmetics. are also tested on animals. 2. Use of Animals for Education and Biomedical Research On the other hand. Researchers do animal testing to see. 2. lipstick.

Other procedures might include giving animals a genetic disease and then trying different gene therapies and medications in hopes to cure the disease.BUS_401 Project Some animals are used for genetic testing. During each test the rabbits are 7|Page . since "LD50" stands for Lethal Dose in 50 percent. they may suffer convulsions. the test is complete when half of the members of the animal group are dead. Prominent Cases of Animal Testing There are different types of safety tests that are routinely conducted for the safety of a drug or cosmetic product. the blatantly obvious problem with the LD50 test is that it does nothing more than demonstrate the amount of a specific substance necessary to kill a dog or rabbit. scientists learn about genetics in a deeper way than they can from humans. 2. and instances of alleged ethical violations by those performing the tests Case 1: The LD50 test The LD50 test is aptly named.8. not a human being. The volume of test substance is increased and the dosage often reaching amounts excessive to the scope of possible exposure. To be blunt. Various specific cases of animal testing have drawn attention. including both instances of beneficial scientific research. because they are able to delve into genes and study them in animals. diarrhea. cheap. Of course. This information aids them to develop new drugs and new gene therapies to help people. Case 2: The Drazie test Drazie test is performed almost exclusively on albino rabbits. Other than clearly being cruel. Genetic testing on animals provides scientists with information necessary to understand human genetics. their corneal membranes are extremely susceptible to injury. making it easier to observe destruction of eye tissue. and their eyes do not shed tears (so chemicals placed in them do not wash out). In this test. the animal subjects do not usually succumb immediately. organ rupture and internal bleeding for a period of weeks. infusing genes with drugs or putting genes from healthy specimens into unhealthy animals. These procedures include separating genes. even months. They are preferred because they are docile. From these tests. They are also the test subject of choice because their eyes are clear. groups of animals numbering from 20 to 100 are force-fed a test substance to determine toxicity levels.

but was euthanized in 2003 after contracting a progressive lung disease. The rabbits^ eyes remain clipped open. Dolly was produced through nuclear transfer to an unfertilized oocyte. The rabbits who survive the Drazie Test may then be used as subjects for skin-inflammation tests. No other attempt is made to treat the rabbits or to seek any antidotes. it was controversial. Anesthesia is almost never administered. a ewe that had been cloned from tissue taken from another adult sheep. Although the production of Dolly was a scientific breakthrough. These substances can range from mascara to aftershave to oven cleaner. are recorded by technicians. Reactions. After that.BUS_401 Project immobilized and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of one eye of each rabbit. which may range from severe inflammation. but also that it would now be. 8|Page . twenty-four. Case 3: The first clone produced from an adult animal In February 1997 a team at the Roslin Institute in Scotland announced the birth of Dolly the sheep. Some studies continue for a period of weeks. living for six years and giving birth to several lambs. and one hundred and sixty-eight hours. possible to clone a human being. seventy-two. forty-eight. to ulceration and rupture of the eyeball. in principle. since it showed that not only could cloned animals be produced for use in farming. the rabbits are examined at intervals of one. and was the only lamb that survived from 277 attempts at this technique. to clouding of the cornea. Dolly appeared to be a normal sheep.

9|Page .1. because doing them would violate the animal's rights. Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare Many animal lovers think animals don't just deserve protection in a paternalistic way.BUS_401 Project Part 3: Attitude towards Animal Testing 3. Rights are much more important than interests. Animal rights supporters believe that it is morally wrong to use or exploit animals in any way and that human beings should not do so. If animals do have rights then there are certain things that human beings should not do to animals. because rights impose a burden on others that the other parties must accept. They say that animals have rights that must be respected.

Accepting that non-human animals have rights requires human beings to accept that:       Non-human animals are conscious beings not machines or objects. There are many rights that are entirely irrelevant to animals. For people who think like this.3. and reducing the suffering reduces the wrong that is done.2. Human beings should not kill non-human animals . the right to vote. then it means that. Human beings should not exploit non-human animals. Human beings should respect the interests of non-human animals. Supporters of animal rights don't think that doing wrong things humanely makes a lesser amount of wrong.BUS_401 Project Animal welfare supporters believe that it can be morally acceptable for human beings to use or exploit animals. Human beings should not treat non-human animals as objects. 3. Human Rights versus Animal Rights No-one suggests that animals should have all the same rights as human beings. If all these facts are accepted by human beings. such as freedom of religion. Moral Status of Animals 10 | P a g e . 3. freedom of speech. human beings can't use non-human animals in medical experiments .even if this restriction will lead to the death of many human beings from a disease for which a cure might be discovered through animal experimentation. Non-human animals have interests of their own. the suffering to animals is at the heart of the issue. as long as: the suffering of the animals is either eliminated or reduced to the minimum and there is no practicable way of achieving the same end without using animals. the right to an education and so on.

human beings may still have a moral duty not to mistreat them. but it would also be wrong. Possible moral positions The argument that animals should be treated properly can be based entirely on the need for human beings to behave morally.even acts that are kind . The Effects of Animal Testing on Animals 11 | P a g e .BUS_401 Project The idea that non-human animals have significant moral status is comparatively modern.regardless of whether the victim has any rights or not.4. those rights should count for less than human wishes.  Causing pain and suffering is morally wrong.. whether the victim is a human animal or a non-human animal. But this argument can't be pushed too far: the absence of cruelty does not make an act morally good. But that doesn't give human beings a moral reasoning to treat animals badly. rather than on the rights of animals are cited below:  Human beings have an awareness of moral ideas and understand the difference between right and wrong. Acts that are not cruel .  Human beings accept that certain things are morally wrong and should not be done . For example: It would be kind to give a relative a false defense to stop him/her going to jail for a crime. Causing pain and suffering therefore diminishes the moral standing of the human being that causes it. This is not because it violates the rights of the victim. 3. Therefore human beings should not be cruel to animals. even if it does remove one ingredient that would make the act morally wrong. but because causing pain and suffering is inherently wrong. Some people believe that animals don't have rights or that even if they do.5. Even if animals don't have rights..can be morally wrong. 3.

For instance. Most commonly. or bleeding from the eyes. According to Singer. Animals that survive are destroyed. For example. There are lots of horrifying tests that are used by the researchers to test their products. paralysis. have the same basic nervous system as humans’. same with human. Animals kept in cages in medicine laboratories are undergoing anxiety of being abused again every single day. Non-oral methods of administering the test include injection. Whether such experiments should be allowed to continue has become a matter for public debate. Symptoms routinely include tremors. pesticides. 12 | P a g e . they are enduring continual physical pain due to not being well kept. Moreover. because of being injected carelessly with medicines. forced inhalation. especially mammals. Physical pain is suffered by animals during many medicine testing. but also mental pain. such as fear. animals also have a part of brain which detects pain.6. stress. animals are force-feed substances (which may be toothpaste. vomiting. etc. their wounds and illnesses are not cured. drain cleaner. and mouth. or anything else they want to test) through a stomach tube and observed for two weeks or until death.BUS_401 Project All animals. they endure stress and fear while the tests are being conducted. three separate British government committees have agreed that animals are not only capable of feeling physical pain. the Drazie Test. cosmetics and drugs. and hit or kicked when they show a sign of rejection. In addition to physical pain suffered by animals during medicine testing. the animals also experience mental pain. Furthermore. Restrictions for Animal Testing Animal rights advocates are pressing government agencies to impose heavy restrictions on animal research. convulsions. nose. they are fed with insufficient amount of food. their cages are not cleaned regularly. For example. But this growing criticism of painful experimentation on animals is matched by a growing concern over the threat restrictions on the use of animals would pose to scientific progress. shaving cream. anxiety. 3. exposed to excessive amount of poisonous substances. Therefore. or application to animal’s skin. etc. diarrhea. although human nervous system is more complicated due to evolution.

and the UK. France. and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing. Aveda and Estee Lauder also avoid animal testing for their various products. European Union (EU) has banned animal testing for cosmetics. the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients. Some companies do not really stick to the facts and distort the truth. after 13 years of discussion. Belgium. but goes into effect in 2009. it's best to take a closer look at these issues and discover what it all means to you. Brands such as Body Shop. which are not tested on animals. 13 | P a g e . L'Oreal. France. Essentially. Belgium. and was concerned about animal cruelty and exploitation. The Body Shop has its own values and ethical principles that include:     No Animal Testing Responsible sourcing and promoting fair-trade No harm to environment and climate Defend human rights The sad story about the authenticity about such claims remains in the fact that many statements are hardly genuine. and in 2002. has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. asking that the ban be quashed. which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company. Avon and Clinique have made their stance clear by using alternative methods to animal testing. To have a more thorough understand of the ban. The ban was agreed upon in 2002. animal rights activists’ strongly oppose the same. it brings to an end the testing of cosmetics on animals in Europe. Germany and Italy. which represents 70 companies in Switzerland. There are many cosmetic industries that claim to sell products. Cosmetics testing is banned in the Netherlands. the ban has been fought all along the way by several groups. Despite general popular approval.BUS_401 Project While leading companies in the cosmetic industry use animals for testing.

BUS_401 Project 14 | P a g e .

Findings of Relevant Studies A survey conducted in the American Medical Association indicates that 99% of all active physicians in the United States believe that animal research has given rise to medical advancements. A British organization by the name Research Defense Society (RDS) that was instituted to defend animal testing indicates that most of the complaints made against animal testing are not correct and also that animal testing generates invaluable information about how new drugs would react inside a living body. enhanced blood pressure. In fact. nerve damage and damages to the fetus. Although he was not the first man to use animal in experiments.2. 4. Expert Opinions and Comments In the mid-1800s. about 97% of the physicians also supported the continuous use if animals for clinical and basic research. His brilliant discovery in developing smallpox vaccine by using animals helped a lot of people and gave hope to the medical field that incurable diseases were not incurable anymore.1. Since then. The main reason behind this is the fact that scientists have found that there is very little or difference between the lab animals and humans. his success made animal testing become commonly used in medicine industry. animal testing has been playing an important role in producing medicines. Animal Testing was introduced to medicine industry by Edward Jenner (Trueman. The tests have to be continued in order to detect information of any major health problems that can be caused by the drugs like liver damage.BUS_401 Project Part 4: Literature Review/Relevant Data Interpretation 4. 2002). 15 | P a g e .

4. especially mammals. DeBakey. he stated that animals do not have minds. • About 20 million animals are experimented on and killed annually. AIDS. 1873). alternative methods must be used to replace animal testing.for both human and animal health. animal research is most important to dramatic progress against cancer. many of the non-verbal reactions of human in expressing emotions are identical with those of animals (Darwin. mathematician and scientist. He also said that animals’ movements and sounds are the same with those of a clock." Animals can assist and be the pioneers that help the scientists save valuable live and continue their discoveries. and Alzheimer’s disease. Michael E. All animals. have the same basic nervous system as humans’. This philosophy is very inaccurate. Descartes. 1980).BUS_401 Project According to Dr. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. 1980). As psychological pains caused by animal testing offends the tested animals’ welfare. Animals are only machines created by God in order to please human beings (Singer. three16 | P a g e fourths for medical purposes and the rest to test various products. but of course more complicated since clock is a machine made by human and animals are God’s creation (Singer. Antibiotics to blood transfusions are negligible treatments that animal testing played a critical and crucial role in developing. Thus. Insulin.S.3. does not know whether an animal is suffering from mental pain or not. In accordance to Charles Darwin in his book. Statistics on Animal Testing Accurate global figures for animal testing are difficult to obtain. Foundation for Biomedical Research (1981) says that “Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century . Now. 1980). The U. . especially a scientist who has conducted a lot of experiments with animals. although human nervous system is more complicated due to evolution (Singer. chairman of the foundation for Biomedical Research (1981). a French philosopher. “Not a single advancement in the care of patients' advancements that you use and take for granted every day – has been realized without the use of animal research. there is no reason that one.” It is irrefutable that every human during some stage in his or her life has benefited immensely from the use of animal testing.

the total number of animals used in that country in 2005 was almost 1. researchers at Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy estimated that 14-21 million animals were used in American laboratories in 1992. 2004”) 17 | P a g e . Home Office figures show that 3.S. ("Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. a reduction from a high of 50 million used in 1970. which make up about 90% of research animals. Great Britain. Four thousand procedures used non-human primates. 10–11 million of them in the European Union. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported that estimates of the animals used in the U. a rise of 189. According to the U. and that their own best estimate was at least 17 million to 22 million.BUS_401 Project • • • An estimated eight million are used in painful experiments. Department of Agriculture (USDA). but this does not include rats and mice. • In 1986. million animals were used.2 million. the U.500 since the previous year. 100 million vertebrates are experimented on around the world every year.S. range from 10 million to upwards of 100 million each year. • In 1995.S.1 The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) estimates that at least 10 percent of these animals do not receive painkillers. • In the UK. Reports show that Types of vertebrates used in animal testing in Europe in 2005: a total of 12. down 240 from 2006.2 million procedures were carried out in 2007.

 Laboratories such as a medicine lab. use the animals to test and study the side effects of that medicine so that it is safe to use on humans. They probably think that it is acceptable to test on animals rather than to test it on a human. 18 | P a g e .BUS_401 Project Part 5: Reasons for Objections to Animal Testing 5.1. experimenting on animals is acceptable if (and only if): suffering is minimized in all experiments and human benefits are gained which could not be obtained by using other methods.  The reasons people agree with animals testing is mainly to see if the invention would work or not. Argument for Animal Testing People agree with animal testing for several reasons:  The main argument for animal testing includes.

Hepatitis B. malaria. Polio. Heart worm medication was devised from research on animals and has to day helped in saving the lives of many dogs.  Finding a cure and a vaccine for AIDS has become one of the most important goals of the medical research industry. The animal models for AIDS are a very important part of the research as they help in understanding the biology of immune-deficiency viruses. To discover this. Anesthesia which is used to numb the body during surgery and acute pain is available today after it was successfully tested on animals first.BUS_401 Project  The most commonly held perception (or rather misconception) of animal testing is that it is necessary for the development of cures. These techniques have led to advances which have saved millions of lives. animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures related to measuring the blood pressure.  Another argument is that there is no alternative to animals due to their similarity to humans. rabies. pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung diseases.  It is also argued that it would be unethical to induce humans to the same test that animals are currently being exposed to.  Human beings are not the only living creatures that have benefited from animal testing.  In addition to this. Several generations can be studied in a relatively short time due to the life span and reproduction span of some animals. mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection.  Testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex. One of the first significant advances due to animal research was the use of insulin from cows in diabetes patients.  Animal research has also provided better understanding of cat nutrition and the reasons behind as to why cats live longer and remain healthier are better understood. 19 | P a g e . researchers performed a lot of tests on dogs and rabbits. It would also be unethical to release drugs to the public without knowing the possible side effects that the drugs could have. It has led to some great findings that have saved many human lives.  Animal testing has proven it usefulness over the years. vaccines and other treatments for human illnesses.

000 puppies died every year from it. As research for a vaccine began. The major arguments against animal testing are:  The main ethical argument against animal laboratory testing is that animals feel pain as sentient beings.  Any benefits to human beings that animal testing does provide could be produced in other ways.  Since there have been so many advances made by animal research "it is difficult to think of any major advance in vaccinations. A vaccine was found and the disease cured.  Animals are also used in cancer research. and other chemicals. According to the Humane Society. where the life and well-being of an animal are valued less than the development of a new lipstick or lotion. surgical procedures and many other fields of medicine that have been made without the use of animal research. and that has been prevented by research done with ferrets. One of the side effects of these treatments was nausea. Humans do not have a right to purposefully inflict harm on another sentient species in order to further their own purposes. They were used to develop techniques such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy. transplant surgery.BUS_401 Project  Animal research also benefits animals too. ten percent of animal testing in the United States is performed to test new products for the beauty market. drug therapy. medicines.  Experimenting on animals is always unacceptable because: it causes suffering to animals and the benefits to human beings are not proven. many organizations opposed it and almost prevented the research. 20 | P a g e . Over 200. knowingly giving an animal a potentially harmful drug. It was caused by a virus and very easily spread. This argument is especially true is reference to product research." 5.  In medical trials. or infecting it with a disease to test new treatments. Argument against Animal Testing Animal testing is a controversial subject.2. Scientists use animals as test subjects for new beauty products. is tantamount to animal cruelty. In the 1920's there was a disease in Britain called canine distemper.

tens of thousands of children whose mothers had used this drug were born with severe deformities. and their reactions to medications or products are not necessarily the same one a human will have. genetics. They have a completely different genetic and physical makeup from humans. experiments and vaccines are concerned. In cancer research with rodents.BUS_401 Project  Perhaps the most convincing argument against animal testing is simply that animals are not human beings. They also have organs which contract cancer that humans do not have. Despite this apparent ‘safety testing’. which was also supposed to be safely tested on animals and later on had a severely adverse impact on humans. the FDA determined that rabbit eye and skin responses to irritants are the same as human eye and skin response less than half the time. but they also tend to react differently from each other. For example. Human reaction to chemicals and medications are starkly different from that of animals. it was marketed as a wonder drug for providing relief from diarrhea. but it even cause 21 | P a g e . the animals have biological processes which lead to cancer that are entirely missing from humans. that the results that are obtained from such experimentation cannot be applied to the human body.  Not only do animals react differently from humans where drugs. The anatomy.  There is a rapidly growing movement of healthcare professionals that include scientists. Manufactures in the 70’s in Japan. and physiology of animals make them poor predictors of human responses to any product or medication. doctors and even some educated members of the public who are extremely opposed to animals based testing. Thalidomide was a drug that came out of the German market and was previously considered to be safely tested on thousands and thousands of animals. Ignoring these differences has been and will continue to be extremely costly to human health. Not only did it not work on humans. an amazing sedative for breastfeeding or pregnant mothers and it supposedly could cause no harm to either the mother or the child.  One of the most famous examples when it comes to the dangers of animal experimentation would have to be the Thalidomide Tragedy of the 60’s and 70’s. They are of the opinion that animal testing and research is completely based on false premises.  Another good example of the dangers of animal testing is Clioquinol. specifically on scientific and medical grounds. It was then marketed as a wonder drug.

com/articles/argument-against-animal-testing. reports have shown that hundreds of thousands of people are killed every year and more than 2 million are hospitalized due to these prescription drugs. Many people have died and suffered from malfunctions because of that. the incidence of cancer has grown and continues to grow. thousands of cases of paralysis and blindness and thousands of death cases occurred all over. Animal research has not aided in the least bit when it comes to warding off cancer. Reports have also shown that at least 4 out of every 10 patients who use a prescription drug can expect to suffer from severe or even noticeable side effects.  Even though most drugs are routinely tested on animals. (http://www. Those acts result in public anxiety and a lot of damages on public and private properties.  Many clinical observers will agree that the incidence of medically induces diseases are now so great that roughly 1 in every 10 hospitals beds will be occupied by patients who have been made ill by their doctors. Take cancer for example. which in turn hampers their life. plentiful tragedies have happened due to the inaccuracy of animal testing results. and it just downright stinks. On the contrary.BUS_401 Project diarrhea in them! As a result of this drug being administered to the public. In fact. Cosmetic testing on animals cannot be considered to be completely reliable.  Also.  However. It can cause permanent damage to animals.  With countless innocent animals. one would expect concrete results to show up if animal experimentation was actually as effective as it is made out to be. animal research has not aided in the fight against any of the major diseases.  Moreover.buzzle. animal testing has generated terrorisms and severe protests conducted by animal-rights advocates. it has managed to divert resources from effective research and from the wisest of all solutions – prevention. Many cancer funds and organizations have claimed that we are now losing the war against cancer because this animal-based cancer research is failing.html) 22 | P a g e . billions of dollars and more than 30 to 40 years being spent on the war against cancer.  The various tests carried out on animals is not a guarantee for using cosmetics on our skin since animals react differently to certain chemicals as compared to humans.

The "three Rs"." The lab-grown cells are already being used as an alternative in the cosmetic field. and that alternatives to animal testing need to be developed. first described by Russell and Burch in 1959.refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim. Behind these torturous practices are the pharmaceutical companies that spend billions of dollars on financing and publicizing the research universities and institutes. The general belief in the goodness of animal testing is basically the result of brainwashing that the general public has been subjected to for a long. and it no longer requires a trip to the doctor and the killing of an animal. improved test methods. long time. Instead of testing their products on animals. There is no basic connection between animal testing and the human health.BUS_401 Project Animal testing will continue to confuse all issues and their results will most definitely be precise and accurate. they are using donated retinas to see if eye irritation occurs. Replacing experiments on animals with alternative techniques such as: o Experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals o Using computer models o Studying human volunteers o Using epidemiological studies 23 | P a g e . and skin to see if there is any irritation.3. 5. and human clinical tests. Some alternatives include "lab-grown cells and organs. In-home pregnancy tests are a result of improved test methods. Most scientists and governments say they agree that animal testing should cause as little suffering as possible. are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in many countries: Replacement. Concern for the Environment and Alternative of Animal Testing People in opposition to animal testing believe there are alternatives to the cruel testing that animals undergo.

cell culture technique is the using of cells. cause cancer.refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals. Briefly. instead of living animals in testing medicines. computer simulation method is the using of several specific computer programs to study metabolism by giving kinetic data and equations that can be observed.BUS_401 Project Reduction. There are three major methods which have been successfully used in experiments. o Reducing the number of animals used in experiments by: o Improving experimental techniques o Improving techniques of data analysis o Sharing information with other researchers Refinement. A five year study based in Sweden has just found that human cell cultures are better than rat and mouse LD50 tests at predicting the concentration of a drug likely to kill a 24 | P a g e . Refining the experiment or the way the animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering by: o Using less invasive techniques o Better medical care o Better living conditions Alternative methods have been developed as solutions to problems caused by animal testing. or to obtain more information from the same number of animals. such as hepatocytes. or cause birth defects. There are alternative tests to find out how poisonous a drug is and whether it is likely to damage particular organs. cell culture technique. and micro fluidic system.refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain. They are computer simulation method. and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used. and micro fluidic system is the using of cell cultures developed in interconnected chambers to mimic human organs. suffering or distress.

Embryonic cell cultures are used to test for birth defects. 25 | P a g e . Bacteria tests are already being used to find out whether a chemical will cause genetic damage that can lead to cancer. or apply it to their eyes or on their skin. can be used. It should be eliminated and replaced by alternative methods which provide better results and better future. At the same time. Human cell cultures can also be used to test whether a chemical is likely to damage a particular organ. Instead of pumping a substance into an animal’s stomach or airways. It is artificial human skin that can replace some animal tests in a fraction of the time and cost. the public’s desire to buy products that haven’t been tested on animals has dramatically increased.BUS_401 Project human. Medicine manufacturers can get more credible results in producing their products and help more unhealthy people. as are fruit fly eggs and the tiny hydra organism. more effective and sophisticated alternative like EpiSkin. Technologies like these are being continually developed. Therefore. Furthermore. animal testing in medicine industry is not appropriate to be used anymore. Human cell tests are also used for this purpose. while animals can be freed from physical and mental pain caused by animal abuse during medicine testing. alternative methods which provide more credible results and do not involve animal abuse have been developed. Anti-animal testing scientists believe that these alternative methods have a good prospect and will give much greater contribution than animal testing does to medicine industry.

Finally we will close with our own feelings on animal experimentation and our conclusions drawn from the analysis. 6. According to Crane & Matten. Ethical Consumerism in the following section.2. Caveat Emptor. 26 | P a g e . Triple Bottom Line.” This theory states the only suitable strategy to achieve a good life is to pursue one’s own desires or interests. “An action is morally right if the decision maker freely decides in order to pursue either their (short-term) desires or their (long-term) interests. we look at the actors involved and analyze if they freely pursue their own desire or interests in these courses of action. There are two courses of action regarding potential utility: • • Action: 1 Do Animal Testing Action: 2 Do not do Animal Testing In our hypothetical case.BUS_401 Project Part 6: Application of Some Major Concepts of Business Ethics 6. Ethics of Duties: Categorical Imperative and concepts like. Analysis of the issue from the Perspective of Different Ethical Theories Egoism: Egoism is one of the oldest philosophical ideas. Theories and Concepts The ethical issues raised by the use of animals in discovering new products or testing the safety of drugs will be analyzed on the basis of ethical theories like Egoism. Utilitarianism.1. Virtue Ethics.

 Development of cures. the initiator of this theory. we have drawn a table which sums up the self-interests of all the actors involved.  Manufacturers will be able to introduce more innovative and safe products. (Crane & Matten. “An action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the action”. Action 1 (Do Animal Testing) might be considered as morally right decision.  Improve the quality and duration of human lives. Action 1: Do Animal Testing Actors Animals Self-Interests Action 2: Do Not Do Animal Testing Actors Animals Self-Interests  No physical suffering for animals.  Development of new drugs and new gene therapies to help people.  Longevity of animals’ lives. drugs and cosmetics Consumers Society Society Companies Companies Table 2: Egoism Utilitarianism: According to the theory of Utilitarianism. Consumers  Consumers will have safe products and drugs. vaccines and other treatments for human illnesses. The theory is based on the ‘greatest happiness’ or ‘maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain’ principle. which encourages actions that results in the greatest amount of good for all people involved or focuses on the collective welfare that is produced by a certain decision.BUS_401 Project In the next page. we would suggest that. If we apply this theory and implement Action 1 (Do Animal Testing) all the actors involved except the Animals can pursue and maximize their own selfinterests. So.  Testing products on animals saves human life. 27 | P a g e . from an egoistic point of view. was purely concerned with the amount of pleasure produced. But if we go for Action 2 (Do Not Do Animal Testing) then only the selfinterests of the Animals will be maximized. 2007) Jeremy Bentham.

Endure stress and fear while the tests. According to the following table there are 4 actors involved: Animals. First we have to identify all the actors involved and analyze their potential utility in terms of the pleasure and pain involved in different course of action. Companies and Consumers. money made and saved on health care will be reduced. Action 1: Do Animal Testing Pleasure Pain • Physical pain is suffered by animals. There are two courses of action regarding potential utility: • • Action: 1 Do Animal Testing Action: 2 Do not do Animal Testing In the following table we have listed all the pleasure and pain of all the actors involve based on two different course of action. • Animals that survive are destroyed. • Consumers will be deprived of safe products Consumers have to buy expensive nonanimal tested products.BUS_401 Project This theory of Utilitarianism can be applied to this ethical dilemma of whether to do animal testing or not.  Consumers will have safe products and drugs.  Longevity of animals’ lives. Action 2: Do Not Do Animal Testing Pleasure Pain No physical suffering for animals. Consumers • Companies  • 28 | P a g e . Manufacturers will be able to introduce more innovative • Innovations in medicine.   Improve the quality and duration of human lives.  • Animals Society Development of cures. Society. Alternatives of animal testing are expensive. vaccines and other treatments for human illnesses.  Development of new drugs and new gene therapies to help people.  Testing products on animals saves human life.  Improve the quality and duration of human lives.

however. Table 2: Utilitarianism After analyzing all the good and bad effects for the actors involved in the ethical dilemma. This inflicts considerable pain to an animal. It merely summarizes the concept that a purchaser must examine. • Difficult to come up frequently with new products and drugs that are safe. It depends on the consumers to decide on whether to buy animal tested products or to buy products that non-animal tested. unless the seller is offering a guarantee of their quality. the doctrine of caveat emptor would apply. drugs and cosmetics. but it prevents far greater pain on behalf of all those humans that profit from the tested drugs. After having done the same with Action 2. and test a product before purchasing the product. On the other hand there are certain responsibilities of the seller to produce products or sell services that are safe and suitable for the consumers’ needs. In our ethical dilemma of Animal Testing. we can now add up all the ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ for Action 1 and the result would be utility of this action. When a sale is subject to this warning the purchaser assumes the risk that the product might be either defective or unsuitable to his or her needs. if both the buyer and the seller are negotiating from equal bargaining positions. This concept is based on the notion of ‘Let the Buyer Beware’.BUS_401 Project and safe products. whereas in Action 2 the pain seems to dominate the analysis. In our hypothetical case animal testing is morally right and our decision would go for Action 1 as it involves most ‘pleasure’ for all parties involved. the moral decision is relatively easy to identify the greatest utility of the respective actions is the morally right one. Caveat Emptor: Caveat Emptor is the commercial principle that the buyer is responsible for making sure that goods bought are of a reasonable quality. They have to take their own responsibility and act 29 | P a g e . judge. This rule is not designed to shield sellers who engage in Fraud or bad faith dealing by making false or misleading representations about the quality or condition of a particular product.

Objective is to create a more just and equitable world. produce and market those products that secure the longterm economic performance for the corporation. hence sustainable human activity must operate at a level that does not threaten the health of those systems. The basic principles of sustainability in the environmental perspective concern the effective management of physical resources so that they are conserved for the future. So. Additionally. if we consider the economic perspective of the triple bottom line.BUS_401 Project accordingly. economic and social considerations”. an environmental degradation may occur if more and more animals are involved in animal experimentation. All kinds of species are required to exist in the environment in order to maintain the ecological sustainability. the economy is really getting the benefit of using the increased money and revenue and also they are saving money by testing the new drugs or products n animals that are less expensive than other alternatives. In our ethical dilemma of animal testing. Additionally. “Sustainability refers to long-term maintenance of systems according to environmental. if we think about the social perspective. Triple bottom line: According to Crane & Matten. animal testing seems to be immoral or unethical. 30 | P a g e . On the other hand. the respective companies selling animal-tested products must disclose the information that their products are animal-tested and are safe to use. then it is not right to do animal testing as it is clearly an injustice to test products on animals without their consent. This is absolutely a proof of imposing the power of human beings on the less powerful or the innocent animals who cannot avoid those tortures. from this point of view. minimizing the divide between the powerful and less powerful groups. The bio-systems have finite resources and finite capacity. The key issue in the social perspective on sustainability is that of social justice. from the environmental side. The economic perspective indicates that the management of a particular company should develop.

Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. the powers of the consumers are more than the corporate. which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths. They have gained these powers through the right of boycotting particular products of certain companies. Therefore. we have no obligations toward them. in turn. boycott of Nestles’ Baby Milk due to their wrong marketing campaign of infant formula. Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. and then they tend to boycott those organizations. ‘Good actions come from good persons’ – meaning that morally correct actions are those undertaken by actors with virtuous characters. Today. 2007). But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings. Virtue Ethics: According to Virtue Ethics. if ethical consumerism is raised among the consumers and they are made concerned about the negative aspects of animal testing. it can be suggested that. Therefore. Since animals are not part of this moral community. then it would be ethical to not do animal testing as it violates the consumers’ right to have ethically made products. For example. Consumers who prefer ethically made products are not interested at all to purchase products that are animal tested. may require the painful experimentation on animals.BUS_401 Project Figure: The three components of sustainability (source: Crane & Matten. They have the right to boycott the companies that are involved in animal testing without the concern of its respective customers. However animals deserves some respect. This shows clear evidence that consumers are more aware these days than ever before and this is a key factor concerning the issue of animal tested products. the value we place on their lives does not count as much as the value 31 | P a g e . 2007) Ethical consumerism: This theory suggests that consumers become aware of organizations’ policies and if anything go beyond the ethical standers. which. the formation of a virtuous character is the first step towards morally correct behaviour (Crane & Matten. decision making depends on the character of the decision maker (Nielsen 2006). One may argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings.

called the ‘Categorical Imperative’. The right to be treated with respect rests." with certain experiences. Thus Virtue ethics does not allow such an action. This right to be treated with respect does not depend on ability of reasoning. Like the racist who holds that respect for other races does not count as much as respect for his or her own race. which should be applied to test every moral problems and a solution is to be regarded as morally right if it passes all the three tests. rather. have value and are worthy of respect. (Crane & Matten. Introduced in Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. I must drink something. Restricting respect for life to a certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or sexism. or some other superior authority to identify principles for ethical behaviour. abstract and unchangeable principles (maxims) that humans should apply to all ethical problems. Humans have the ability to make their own rational decisions regarding right and wrong. and interests. on a creature's being a "subject of a life. 2007) The Categorical Imperative is the central philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant . or imperative. yet he or she may not be able to act rationally. and morality can be summed up in one ultimate commandment of reason. great and small. Kant proposed a theoretical framework consisting of three principles. human beings do not need God. morality and the decision about right and wrong is a question of certain eternal. like humans. According to Kant. those who support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or her own species. A categorical imperative. "Speciesism" is as arbitrarily unjust as racism or sexism. human beings occupy a special place in creation. are subjects of a life. preferences. as well as modern deontological ethics. Animals. Lives of all creatures. According to Kant. the church. from which all duties and obligations derive. Ethics of Duties: Categorical Imperative According to German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).BUS_401 Project we place on human lives. Justice demands that the interests of animals should be respected which includes respect for their interest to be spared undeserved pain. it may be defined as a way of evaluating motivations for action. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. 32 | P a g e . An insane person has a right to be treated with respect. A hypothetical imperative compels action in a given circumstance: if I wish to quench my thirst.

But. According to Kant. whether in your own person or in the person of any other. both required and justified as an end in itself. Maxim 2: Act in such a way that you treat humanity. In this respect to non-rational agents do not have intrinsic moral content. It is best known in its first formulation. Maxim 3: Therefore. 33 | P a g e . since this feeling promotes morality in relation to other human beings. Kant derived a prohibition against cruelty to animals as a violation of a duty in relation to oneself.BUS_401 Project on the other hand. Therefore. man has the duty to strengthen the feeling of compassion. Maxim 1: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. never merely as a means to an end. but always at the same time as an end. denotes an absolute. Thus it is a clear violation of the third maxim so the ethics of duties theory doesn’t support the notion of animal testing. Thus animal testing is seen as cruelty to animals. man is obliged not to treat animals brutally. The categorical imperative consists of three parts. every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. cruelty to animals deadens the feeling of compassion in man. unconditional requirement that asserts its authority in all circumstances.

Recommendations 34 | P a g e .BUS_401 Project Part 7: Recommendations and Conclusions 7.1.

so a win-win situation can be obtained. 7. Reduction and Refinement. first described by Russell and Burch in 1959. animal testing is a must. If animal testing was to be barred then there would be very little scope of obtaining information that would be very necessary to eliminate suffering and premature deaths in both humans and animals. these methods do not need animals in their implementation. As a result. are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in many countries: Replacement. It should also be accepted that animals and their welfare matter. Alternative methods of animal testing might be used for research and other experimentations. It is up to us and all individuals belonging to animal organizations and medical research to ensure that the same is carried out in a safe. computer simulation method. • More and more alternatives to animal testing need to be developed. there is no animal abuse and cold-blood killing of animals involved.BUS_401 Project After analyzing all the arguments and the negative and positive contributions of animal testing with the application of different theories. ethical manner causing as little pain and discomfort possible to the animal. Conclusion 35 | P a g e . and micro fluidic system.2. Such as. Both humans and animals are benefited by using these alternative methods. and that replacing animal use is a legitimate and desirable goal. Our Own Views: The fact of the matter is that to make advances in the field of medicines. The "three Rs". cell culture technique. • These methods provide more accurate results than animal testing does. Also. Restraining or banning the testing by animal activists will not help in any way. we have to the conclusion by drawing some acceptable recommendations based on our research: • • • Animals should be used in research only when necessary and suitable to minimize the risk of research and development of new medicinal products.

Immanuel. Bibliography 1. A (2004). "Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine". “Testing Bans and Marketing Bans under the Cosmetics Directive” 5.M. National Center for the Replacement. it has helped countless people regain their health back indirectly by ensuring the safety and function of medicines they use. Lipinski. Christopher. "The Removal of Inhumanity: The Three R's" Retrieved 3. R. animal testing is inhumane and no animal should be forced to endure such torture. hundreds of thousands of fully conscious animals are scalded. or crushed to death. We must acknowledge that animals are not only properties which are made by God to serve human. 4. (2007). 2. Refinement. and Burch. For almost two hundred years of implementation in medicine industry. or beaten. On the other hand. Russell.S. They are similar to human. K. "Micro dosing and the 3Rs". and more are subjected to exotic surgery and then allowed to die slowly and in agony. they also have feelings. Ellington [1785] (1993). 36 | P a g e . K. Fischer. and Reduction of Animals in Research ( NC3Rs ). Malcolm Rowland (2006). While humans are cured. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd Ed. There is no reason for this suffering to continue. animals are slaughtered. Hopkins. consciousness. Animal testing has brought both advantages and disadvantages to our society.BUS_401 Project Every day of the year. So.L. innumerous animals have been sacrificed and suffering from animal abuse during medicine testing. translated by James W. W. (2009). and rights which are needed to be protected.

co.html (Accessed on 1 August 2010) British Government. Animal free Zone.officialdocuments. Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004).buzzle.html(Accessed on 1 August 2010) 9. 1st Edition pg 20-22 10. Business Ethics. “Sustainability”. 1st Edition pg 81 12.pdf (Accessed on 1 August 2010) 8.gov. Available at: http://www. “Consequentialist Theories”. “Traditional Ethical Theories”.uk/document/cm67/6713/6713. A (2010). Arguments against Animal testing (online).animalfreezone. Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004). “The EU Ban on Animal Testing for Cosmetics “ Available: http://www. Animal Testing and Legitimization: Evidence of Social Investment and Corporate Disclosure” Bantwal . 1st Edition pg 84-86 37 | P a g e . Business Ethics. Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004). Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004).com/articles/argument-against-animal-testing. Robert F P. 1st Edition pg 79-80 11. Business Ethics. “Utilitarianism”. Great Britain. N.uk/eu-ban-animal-testing-for- cosmetics. 1st Edition pg 81-84 13.(2010). Animal Testing 88 Available at : http://hubpages. Available at: http://www. Business Ethics. (2007). Business Ethics. Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004). (2010). ‘‘Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A vision and a Strategy’’ Haris. “Egoism”.com/hub/Animal-Testing ( Accessed on 1 August 2010) 7.BUS_401 Project 6. (2004) "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. Joseph H (2007) “.

& Meaney. "The Expression of The Emotions in Man and Animals" 19. (2002). (2005). Business Ethics. Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004). 22. "Animals and Alternatives in Testing: History. and Ethics". Westport. 20. Science. (1873). “Non-Consequentialist theories”. Beckoff. J.Y. P. Conn.: Delmar Publishers. Scientists Call for End to Non-Human Primates in Research and Testing" 21. French Animal Right League (FARL) contributors. N. "Medical Terminology for Health Professions" Albany. “Ethics of duties”. S. Darwin. "Speaking for The Animals. or The Terrorists?".BUS_401 Project 14. Zurlo. "Animal Rights Activists in New Wave of Attacks" 23. "Animals and The Value of Life: Matters of Life and Death" 24. 38 | P a g e . Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004). (2005). Universal Declaration of animal rights. (1993). (2005). 1st Edition pg 96 17. Smallwood. Andrew Crane & Dirk Matten (2004). R. "Edward Jenner" 26. “Contemporary ethical theories”. A. C. (1994). The Chronicle of Higher Education. "Animal Protection Groups. A. 18. (1980). Business Ethics. 1st Edition pg 86 15. 25. C. 1st Edition pg 86-89 16. M. Ehrlich. Murray-West.: Greenwood Press. "Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare". (2005). S. Singer. Farinato. Trueman. (1998). Business Ethics.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful