The Case for the Human Testis in Vitro

Questions: 1) Do you believe that the ends justify the means with the animal testing presented in the case? 2) Do you agree with Ken Shu or His advisor? Explain. 3) What criteria should be used when it comes to animal testing? Answers: 1. The medical world has benefitted immensely from scientific research involving animal testing. From insulin to antibiotics, from HIV to cancer, every research related to every kind of disease requires the involvement of animal testing (Rychert et al.). But does animal testing mean cruelty? That is the question we address through the given case study. Ends do not justify the means here because I feel the pain and discomfort caused to the animal could have been avoided with further concern on the researchers part and that would be a humane thing to do. 2. Ken Shu shows concern about the animal subject which is understandable because scientifically there has been no proof of animals being unaware or unconcerned about physical discomfort or pain. As seen in the experiment, on regaining consciousness the animal explores its stumps and shakes a little. This shows that the animal is well aware of the loss; even a feeling of shock can be anticipated. In spite of this the research goes on probing the animal and hurting it while it is fully conscious. This shows carelessness on the researchers part. The pain could be subdued with the help of pain killers. Ken Shus advisor shows no concern about this which is both cruel and unethical. I will side with Ken Shus concern. 3. Animal testing cannot be avoided in the medical field. But the process can be amended to include humane measures (Chapin et al.). The idea here is to harm or cause pain to the animal as little as possible. Around 90 million animals are killed worldwide for research. The animals are used as means to an end which is neither ethical nor humane. The research industry should use tact and technique to handle animal testing as humanly as is possible. References Chapin, Robert E., et al. "Assuring safety without animal testing: The case for the human testis in vitro."Reproductive Toxicology39 (2013): 63-68. Rychert, Marta, and Chris Wilkins. "Is the recent ban on animal testing of legal high products a fatal blow to the development of a legal market for lowà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ riskpsychoactive products in New Zealand?."Addiction110.4 (2015): 714-715.