Animal rights defines that animals are of equal or similar importance to humans, and thus, animals must receive equal or similar treatment to that of humans. In this framework, animals are not to be killed or enslaved by humans, or even used by humans. (Richard D. Ryder, 1994).
The pros of the animal rights involve the idea that nonhuman animals are sentient beings -- that they have the capacity to experience pain and pleasure. And accompanying this belief is the idea that animals have certain inalienable moral rights, which humans should not violate. However, some animal rights advocates believe that nonhuman animals have the right not to be used for any purpose by humans -- which animals are "not ours to eat, wear or experiment on." (Quaife Thomas. 1990)
Since 1981, the Silver Spring monkey case has triggered increasing opposition to the use of animals in research from many animal rights and animal welfare organizations. Animal activists, antivivisectionists, and some scientists are now less willing to accept reassuring statements from scientists that all is well in animal research activities. The opposition to animal research is based on concerns of whether
- Some assumptions about animal testing are valid;
- Laboratory science can make further contributions;
- Basic research in the medical sciences has any direct bearing on preventing diseases or improving medical care;
- improvement in health is likely to come in the future, as in the past, from modification of the conditions that lead to disease, rather than from intervention in the mechanism of disease after it has occurred;
- Billions of dollars are being wasted regulating substances that might pose little risk;
- Animal research is a perpetuation of cruel and archaic methodology;
- The government should guarantee that animals are treated humanely;
Peer review by scientists.......
