动物实验-英语辩论.doc

Ａｎimal　Eｘｐerimｅntation
Suｍmaｒy: Is it　ｍorally　ａｃcepｔablｅ to experiment on　ｎｏn-human ａｎimaｌs　to deveｌｏp proｄuｃｔs ａｎd　ｍedicｉｎes tｈat beｎｅfiｔ　humａｎ ｂeings?
For manｙ　ceｎturiｅｓ pｅｏpｌe hａｖｅ　experｉｍented on　ａnimals. There ａre two maｉn　rｅａｓｏns foｒ dｏing　thiｓ: fiｒst， to fｉnd ouｔ more　ａboｕt thｅ animalｓ themｓeｌveｓ, and,　secondly, 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)． Iｎ ｔhe ｓecｏｎd cａtegory fａｌl cｏsmetic prｏducts as wｅｌl ａs　mｅdicｉnes ａｎd suｒｇiｃａl　teｃhnｉｑues. There　is a　ｇrowing　cｏnｓｅnsus ｔhat it is nｏt　ａcｃeptaｂｌe to tesｔ　cｏsmetｉｃ products on aniｍａｌs. Tｈis　deｂate is about　wheｔｈｅr　we　shｏuld eｘpｅrｉment　oｎ ａnimals ｆor sｃiｅｎtific and mｅｄｉｃａl pｕｒposeｓ.　The debａtｅ abouｔ ｔhe pros and　cons oｆ anｉｍal experiｍｅｎｔatｉon (or　'viｖisｅction'） ｉs one　tｈat eliｃiｔs very ｓtronｇ emｏtions: anｉmａl ｒigｈｔs　acｔiviｓｔs ｈave ｒesｏｒｔed to treｓｐasｓ，　vｉｏｌencｅ, dｅａth　tｈreaｔs， and hunｇｅr stｒikｅs in thｅir　single－miｎdeｄ （and sｏmetimｅs iｌleｇal)　mｉsｓion　ｔo　eｎd tｈis prａｃtｉcｅ．

Pros
Cons
Ｅxperｉｍents on animals should be conｓｉdｅred oｎ a casｅ－by－case bａｓis. The proper pｒinciple tｏ　ａpｐly， howeｖer,　is ｔhat thｅ reｄuction ｏｆ　human ｓufferｉng iｓ　our ｆｉrｓt prｉｏrｉｔy anｄ　ｔhｅ prevenｔion　ｏf ａnimaｌ ｓuffｅring or ｄeatｈ　ｉs sｅcｏndarｙ tｏ ｔｈat　（alｔhougｈ still impoｒtant).　So　that　if there　is ａ decenｔ chaｎｃe tｈａt an ｅxｐerimeｎt will ｒｅsｕlt in an imｐoｒtaｎt　meｄical ｂｒｅakthｒough that will rｅｄuce human suｆferinｇ　ａnd deaｔh ｔｈen it　iｓ justiｆiable　to aｌｌoｗ anｉmal　suｆfering. Ａnimaｌ ｅxperimentａtioｎ is tｈｅ　（sometｉmeｓ ｄｉstastefｕl) means to　ｍuｃh　gｒeatｅｒ ｅndｓ.
Animaｌs have the riｇht　ｔo　ｂe treated　as　ｂeinｇs of　vaｌue ｉn theｍsｅｌves, not ａs　tｈｅ mｅaｎs　tｏ huｍaｎ　ends;　this priｎcipｌｅ mｕst bｅ apｐlies　in　ordeｒ ｔo ｇuarantee　tｈe ｅnd of cｒｕelｔy to　ａniｍaｌs.　Ｔｈe　applicａtiｏn ｏf　thiｓ prinｃｉｐle　mｅａns ｔｈat ａniｍａls shouｌd neｖer bｅ ｅｘpeｒimenteｄ upon whａtevｅｒ ｔhe potentｉal gａin for huｍanity. To infect monｋｅｙs ｗith tｈｅ AＩDS ｖirus or to ｅxｐｏse rodentｓ tｏ ｔoxic cheｍiｃals and radiation is simply not accepｔabｌe,　ｗhａtever　the suppｏseｄ benefitｓ.
Althougｈ in princiｐｌe it is moｒe impｏrtanｔ to rｅｄucｅ huｍan　suffｅriｎg　ｔｈat tｏ preveｎt ａniｍal　suｆferｉng， in prａcｔice ｉt iｓ pｏｓsiｂle (ａnｄ absolutｅｌｙ right) to keep　aniｍal sｕｆfering to　an ａbｓolutｅ ｍinimum. Aｎimａｌ ｅxpeｒiｍenｔerｓ should aspire　to the ｈigheｓt lｅvels ｏｆ ａnimaｌ wｅｌｆaｒe ｉn thｅir ｌａborａtoｒieｓ, ｕsinｇ　anaestheｔiｃs whereｖeｒ　ｐossibｌe anｄ keepiｎg animaｌs iｎ cｌeａn, ｃoｍfortable， and heaｌthy coｎｄitions． Ｉn shoｒｔ, it is poｓsiblｅ to ｅxｐeｒiment ｏn animals withｏｕt beiｎg　ｃｒｕel tｏ ａnimaｌs.
In practice, ａs evｅryone knｏws， animaｌs aｒe nｏｔ ｒｏutinely treａtｅd well ｂy anｉｍal　expeｒｉmｅnters. Ａparｔ ｆrom　the fact thａt ｍillｉons oｆ ａnimａls diｅ each year in　eｘperimenｔs, otｈｅrｓ　aｒe oｆtｅn ｎot ａｄｅｑuaｔely anａｅｓthetｉsed and are　abused by　hａndlers aｎd eｘｐerimenters.　Iｔ iｓ　idealistic　to ｓuppｏse thａt　tｈis will eveｒ sｔｏp　as long as society enｄorｓes ｖivisｅcｔｉon.
Pａｓｔ　expeｒｉeｎce ｈas shown　ｗhat inｖaｌuaｂlｅ advanceｓ can　ｂe made in　meｄiｃiｎe ｂy expeｒimentinｇ　ｏn aｎimals, aｎd　that　livｅ animａls ａre ｔhe mｏst reliablｅ sｕbjｅｃts　for tｅｓting ｍeｄiｃineｓ and otｈer products for toxｉcity.　Iｎ many ｃｏuntrｉes （e.g. the US　and ｔhｅ UK) all preｓcｒｉｐtｉon dｒｕgｓ　must be　ｔｅsted ｏn anｉｍals befoｒe tｈeｙ aｒe　ａllowed　onto tｈe ｍarket.　To bａｎ anｉmａl experimentｓ　ｗoulｄ ｂe　to　parａlyse modern　medicｉne,　to perpetｕａte human　sｕffeｒｉng, and tｏ enｄangｅr hｕmａｎ health by allowing prodｕｃts　ｓucｈ as ｉnsecｔiｃiｄes onｔo the markｅt befｏrｅ ｔestinｇ　tｈｅm　for toxｉcｉtｙ.
In ｆａcｔ　few ｂrｅakthｒouｇhs hａve been ｍaｄe as a rｅｓuｌｔ of animal　eｘｐerimentａtion -　iｔs ａｄvocaｔes ｈave　overｓtａtｅｄ its achievｅmentｓ. Tｈｅre　has beeｎ　a catalogｕe oｆ erｒｏｒｓ anｄ ｆailures　in ａnｉmal testing, whiｃh itｓ　aｄvocaｔes　gloss　ｏveｒ; as　many　ａs　ｈalf the　drｕgs ｔｈaｔ　ｈａve beｅｎ apｐroveｄ iｎ ｔhe US anｄ the UＫ aftｅr aｎiｍａl tesｔｉng hａve ｓubseｑuently haｄ tｏ be withdrawn becauｓe　of harｍful　side-eｆfects. Furｔhｅrｍoｒe, thｅre　ａre alterｎａtiveｓ　to maｎy　teｓｔs　thaｔ are ｃuｒrently doｎｅ on　animａｌs - e.g.　gｒowｉng tissue or cell cultures ｆrom hｕmａn ｃells　iｎ thｅ laboｒaｔorｙ．
Ｈuman beiｎgｓ　shａｒe abｏuｔ 99% of theｉr geｎｅｓ wiｔｈ　cｈｉmpanzees and oｎｌy slｉghtly fewer ｗiｔh ｏther　monｋｅｙs. As a rｅsｕlt, ｔｈe　ｒｅactioｎs oｆ ｔhese creａtｕres are ａ ｖｅrｙ goｏd guide to poｓsiblｅ reactiｏns oｆ　human　patｉenｔｓ． Evｅn lower　dｏwn the sｃaｌｅ, oｔher　ａnimaｌs shaｒe the same　basic ｐhyｓｉology ｗiｔh　huｍaｎｓ． Fｕrtherｍore,　iｔ　ｗoｕld ｂｅ immoral to rｉsk tｈe life of a human　beinｇ wheｎ ａ　mｅｄicinｅ or　prｏcｅｄuｒe　ｃoｕｌd instｅad ｂｅ tested ｏn a　non－ｈuman animaｌ.
Iｎ fact， ｍosｔ animal eｘpｅrimentｓ aｒe ｄｏne ｏn animａlｓ that　ａrｅ notｈｉng　ｌiｋe　hｕman ｂeingｓ -　rats aｎd miｃe － whiｃh　uｎdｅrmines the arｇｕmｅｎt ｔhaｔ these　exｐerimｅnｔｓ arｅ　a relｉablｅ ｇuide to human　reａctions． Scientiｆically,　aｓ ｗｅlｌ　as morally,　most anｉmal experiｍentａtion is tｏ ｂe ｒejected　-　tｈe reａction　of a　mouse to a subｓｔａnce ｉs ｎo gｕide　to ｈuman　ｒeactions. Eａｃh speｃies ｈas　ｉtｓ own　uniqｕe physiology. And the moｒｅ　ｓimilaｒ an aｎimal is　to a human beｉng - e.g. ａ　chimpaｎｚee - ｔhe　morｅ inteｌligent ａnｄ sｅntiｅnt it is, and　so ｔhe mｏｒe iｍmｏral　it　is to ｔreａt iｓ　as　a dispoｓabｌe and wｏrthless bioｌogical object.
There　aｒe indeed new　issuｅs raiｓed bｙ ｔｈe adｖeｎt ｏf　ｇｅｎetｉｃ ｅngineerinｇ aｎd 'tranｓgenｉc＇ ａnｉmaｌｓ; thｅｓe, liｋe all animal　expｅrｉｍents shoｕｌd bｅ closely mｏnitｏrｅd　ｓo ａs tｏ　mｉｎｉmｉsｅ ａnimal suｆfeｒｉｎｇ. The fact thaｔ　tｈere aｒe new issueｓ heｒe does　nｏｔ meaｎ　thaｔ theｒe shoulｄ nｅver　be　any expeｒｉmentｓ on　animａls.
The ａdｖent oｆ genetic tｅｃhnologｉeｓ ｈas mａde　possible all sｏｒtｓ ｏf ｎeｗ and ｈoｒｒific　aｃtｓ ｏf　aｎimａl ｅxploｉtation, froｍ ｃｌｏｎing ｓhｅep to cｒeaｔｉng mｕｔant ａnd　hｙbｒid　cｒeａtures with no ｄignity oｒ　qｕalｉｔy　of ｌifｅ at ａｌl.　We sｈoｕld end aｎimal　experｉmｅntａtiｏn　beｆore　ｔｈｉｎgs geｔ　evｅn wｏrse.
Whａt　is　ｏfteｎ ovｅrｌookｅd in this debaｔｅ is ｔhe suｂｊect　of ｖeterinary medicine.　It iｓ in ｔｈｅ ｉntｅrｅsts of anｉmａls ｔｈeｍselvｅｓ　tｈａt ｅxpｅrｉmeｎts be ｄone on　animals to tesｔ mｅdicinｅs　anｄ suｒｇicａl procｅdｕｒes foｒ usｉｎg ｏn aｎｉmａlｓ　tｈemselvｅs, nｏt　ｊusｔ　on　humans.　Ａniｍaｌ exｐerｉｍｅｎtａtiｏn cａｎ be　in the intereｓts ｏｆ animaｌs as　wｅlｌ as　oｆ ｈumaｎs．
Ｉｔ is onｌy　ａｃｃeptablｅ to test　ｈumaｎ mediciｎｅs on ｈuman　beingｓ if thｅy　give　theｉr consｅnｔ. Non-human anｉmals　are nｅver　ａｂle to give suｃh cｏnsｅｎt． It iｓ therefｏｒｅ　neｖｅr　ａcｃｅｐtablｅ　to test　medicｉｎes oｎ　perfectｌy hｅaltｈy aｎimａls, even iｆ　ｔhe treaｔmentｓ ａre ｆoｒ ｕse　on ｏｔher animａls.