1

The Issue between Animal Rights and Scientific Experimentation

The issue between animal rights activists and animal experimentation has been an

ongoing dilemma. The show Tiger King, a new documentary series that everyone is talking about,

is a prime example of the problem between animal rights groups and scientific organizations. In

addition, it is a series about a woman named Carole Baskins, who is in charge of Big Cat Rescue,

and a man named Joe Exotic, a man who ran a tiger zoo. Carole believed what Joe was doing was

inhumane and that he was doing it to benefit himself and not the animals. Furthermore, the

series exemplifies the issue between not just the two groups, but what happens within society

today.

The history behind animal rights started in the early centuries, and is even more

controversial today. Many people were meat-eaters and believed using animals for food was

civilized to end the suffering of animals (The American Historian 2020). However, animal activists

thought animals needed to be free of humans to stop their suffering (The American Historian

2020). Many protectionists believed that animals and children were seen as the same and should

be protected. One of the first animal activist groups, PETA, began in 1980 when Pacheco and

Newkirk came together after visiting a slaughterhouse and seeing the harsh environment the

animals were living in (McGee 2017). The issue between animal rights and animals for science

continues today because animals are biologically engineered the same as humans and are critical

for survival, yet the question lies in whether animals are capable of the same sentience as

humans.

To start, the major issue lies within animal experimentation. Additionally, animals are

biologically the same as humans. Furthermore, there are three different regions that scientists
 2

usually practice for research: biomedicine and behavior, testing for toxicity, and education in the

life sciences (Ellis and Kathi 1988). Animals are considered crucial in these studies in order to

receive new information about humans, without having to actually experiment on humans. For

instance, animals are set up to eat almost the same diets as humans in order to maintain

similarities (NAP 2020). Likewise, animals like rabbits have been used to cure atherosclerosis and

monkeys have been used to cure polio because they are biologically the same as humans (NAP

2020). Scientist test on these animals because they have the same makeup, yet there has been

multiple substitutions for animals as technology arises, such as using chick embryo membranes

instead of rabbit eyes to test chemical substances (Ellis and Kathi 1988). Another example that

ensures animal experimentation is a positive is testing on the heart of dogs. Dogs in America are

used as pets, so it may seem terrible to operate on the heart of a dog, but the outcome was

beneficial. Scientists needed to work “directly on the heart” and by 1923 experimenting on a

dog’s heart had advanced so much that doctors were about to save a twelve-year-old girl who

was in a coma (NAP 2020). Without the research done to perform these procedures, many

people would not survive due to scientist lacking the knowledge to heal an individual.

Moreover, animal studies have helped in the field of behavior based on an individual’s

environment (Goodwin 1990). For example, animals are used in behavioral studies to show

alcohol addiction and provide methods of training to help those who are addicted (NAP 2020).

Meanwhile, scientists believe that a change in the location of the animal and had shown the

environment’s effect on behavior. Placing individuals in a different environment can change how

they act. Not only does experimenting help people, but it helps veterinarians saving other

animals, as well. Without animal experimentation, the knowledge that scientists and doctors
 3

need to reduce the amount of illnesses that enter the world would decrease, and many lives

would be lost.

In contrast, the fundamental rights of animals are seized because of experimentation.

According to MacDonald, “…animals and humans are similar in ways that count.” What he means

is animals are intelligent enough to appreciate their own lives. Animal rights activists believe

animals are not “property” but possess human capabilities, and should be left alone in their own

environments (Friedman 2017). People in favor of protecting animals believe in “prevention over

prosecution” (The American Historian 2020). Animals have as many feelings as humans and

killing them for experimentation is not fundamentally right. Even though experimenters have

reduced the amount of animals experimented on and use tranquilizers and anesthesia as a way

to decrease pain (Ellis and Kathi 1988), animal research conducts a lot of unnecessary pain when

there are other alternatives than animals (Goodwin 1990). An example of using innocent animals

start with what “launched PETA,” the Silver Spring monkey trials. The trial started when Pacheco,

one of PETA’s founders, went to Silver Spring and was mortified by what he saw, innocent

monkeys “missing fingers, toes, and chunks of flesh” (McGee 2017). As he moved forward he

noticed swollen bones on a couple of monkeys, as well. The Silver Spring money trials ended

with a new Animal Welfare Act of 1966 (McGee 2017). Furthermore, it started small with

punishments of a fine or jail time, but as the years have passed the Animal Welfare Act has

become stricter in protecting animals’ fundamental lives.

Specifically, people who believe kindness towards animals is essential brought up the

questions of “Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?” (MacDonald 2006).

Even though experimenters are using technology to stop the suffering, the animal still loses its
 4

life when it should not. The main excuse for experimenters is that animals do not have feelings

or real thoughts; however, according to Friedman animals are considered “sentient” because

they can “sense their environment and interpret those sensations.” Plants, fungi, bacteria and

other microorganisms are living species, some people bring forth the statement that it would be

the same process (Friedman 2017). They are different, however, because they have no nerves to

actually “feel,” fluctuating them from animals.

Research has shown certain animals are more capable of thinking than humans that are

either young or mentally ill. Rene Descartes, is a vivisection advocate and does not see animals

as more than “mindless machines” (MacDonald 2006). However, there are many people in

society that are mentally ill, and animals like dolphins and great apes have a higher IQ. Singer

believed that newborn babies and the mentally ill are considered people just as much as animals

because of their thinking abilities, further exemplifying they “feel” just as people do (MacDonald

2006). A vegetarian who once ate cows explained how he would eat them because they had no

real thought process, yet he would never eat a whale because it would be like eating a human

being (Freidman 2017). He believes whales were more intelligent than cows and capable of

making a family and realizing it was a family at the same time (Friedman 2017). The man later

became a vegetarian for the reason that he believed all animals had the right to live. In addition,

animal rights advocates believe in people who think certain animals have rights while others do

not cause problems in today’s society. They believe it is considered “racist” to save certain

animals, while not saving others (MacDonald 2006). In the end, animals are capable of thinking

and feeling, it is just altered from a human’s thoughts.

According to animal experimentation advocates, animals were put on earth the serve

humans. In the United States alone, there has been a range of seventeen to twenty-two million

animals used for experimentation, most being rats and mice (Ellis and Kathi 1988). Scientists and

research consultants are always going to need animals because of their cell, tissue, and organ

make up (Ellis and Kathi 1988). A study on training in medical combat is a prime example of using

the lives of animals. The United States uses goats and pigs to practice their tissue repairing

surgical procedures (Martinic 2012). The surgeons their work on these animals, but only after

they are put under deep anesthesia (Martinic 2012). Many people believe that animal

experimentation is a terrible deed, but it has saved the lives of millions of people wounded

during a war. Computer simulations are the newest form of research that PETA and other animal

activist groups believe should be used as an alternative to complete research (Ellis and Kathi

1988). What PETA and other groups do not understand is when they tell scientists to use a

program, they have to gain data from those living organisms which is not the same as the real

buildup of the animal (Goodwin 1990). Computer simulations do not bring forth the real life

experience of treating an individual that is on the verge of dying. Without the use of live animals,

many soldiers would die because medics would not have realistic treatment.

Moreover, the moral value of animals is something worth fighting for. Organizations like

PETA try to represent the moral values of animals and explain how they are worth more than just

research. J.M. Coetzee explains his research done in the case about Nazi’s relating to animals in

today’s society. The Seattle-based Northwest Animal Rights Network compared the Jewish

Holocaust people with animals inside of the slaughterhouses (MacDonald 2006). The research

demonstrated chickens and people by showing off those laying in their beds in the camps versus
 6

chickens in rows of the broiler (MacDonald 2006). The harshest was the display of human

corpses on one side and an amount of pig corpses on the other (MacDonald 2006). The point is

that the moral value of the Jewish society was taken away by horrible people, and the same

thing is happening to animals. Poorly placing animals in terrible environments and murdering the

innocent creates for a petrifying relationship between humans and animals. In relation, the man

who examined the Silver Spring monkey trials explained how terrible the environment was for

the monkeys. The cages were absolutely awful with filth and feces piled all over the cages, and

urine and rust all over the surfaces (McGee 2017). Animal activists believe it is not okay to treat

animals the way that scientific organizations do. If there is to be experimentation, the need for

cleaner and more stable environments is crucial for animals giving their lives to help save people.

Many advocates believe that animals are “subjects of life” and have the ability to be seen as a

human beings (The American Historian 2020). According to Friedman, all people and species are

capable of “living, thinking, and feeling” giving animals the freedom of life (Friedman 2017).

On the other hand, Martinic believes people are “morally obligated” to use animals in

order to save human life because people possess more “sentience” than animals (Martinic

2012). People are capable of more feelings, and the responsibility of taking care of humans is

something that Martinic believes is more important that sparing the lives of a few animals that

do not possess the same abilities that humans do. He argues that animals are treated with as

much respect as possible, and are put down in through anesthesia (Martinic 2012). Through the

Animal Welfare Act, animals are not able to be used in another surgical procedure, so the

animals are not to be used once already tested on (Ellis and Kathi 1988).
 7

In conclusion, the issue remains ongoing because of the different views on how animals

are used in society. The biological makeup of animals creates a need to test on them in order to

save human life. Whether it is for military purposes, or to find new vaccinations for animals and

humans, the use of animals is vital for existence. However, animal activist groups believe the

conditions animals are placed in at scientific organizations is not appealing and has to change. In

addition, activist groups demand the use of computer simulations to reduce the amount of

animals in experimentation. The question that most ponder is whether or not the animals really

feel what is happening to them. Their moral rights are of important and animal advocates strive

to help the innocent, just like people trying to save the innocent from terrible crimes. Animal

experimentation has declined in the United States by 25% for the past thirty-five years, and

animal activist groups are still determined to lower the amount (McGee 2017). By the end of The

Tiger King documentary series, the show expresses the true light of how much animal life

matters to people, or if they are using the animals to benefit themselves.

Bibliography

Ellis, Gary B., and Kathi E. Hanna. 1988. “Evaluating Biomedical Technology for the U.S. Congress

Animal Experimentation and Public Policy.” Policy Studies Review 8 (2): 357–68.

doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb01107.x.

Friedman, Jerold D. 2017. “The Danger of Being Wrong about Animal Rights: A Social Justice

Attorney’s View.” National Lawyers Guild Review 74 (3): 167–80.

http://ezproxy.nwmissouri.edu:2057/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=129094150&si

te=eds-live&scope=site.

Goodwin, F.K. 1990. “The Value of Animals in Alcohol-Related Research.” Alcohol Health &

Research World 14 (3): 173.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=9107292570&site=eds

-live&scope=site.

MacDonald, David B. 2006. “Pushing the Limits of Humanity? Reinterpreting Animal Rights and

‘Personhood’ Through the Prism of the Holocaust.” Journal of Human Rights 5 (4): 417–

37. doi:10.1080/14754830600978208.

Martinic, G. 2012. “Military ‘Live Tissue Trauma Training’ Using Animals in the U.S. - Its Purpose,

Importance and Commentary on Military Medical Research and the Debate on Use of

Animals in Military Training.” Journal of Military & Veterans’ Health 20 (4): 4.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=92521636&site=eds-

live&scope=site.

McGee, Anna Grace1. 2017. “Taking a Stand for Animal Rights: The Silver Spring Monkey

Trials.” Kentucky English Bulletin 67 (1): 89–93.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=127131842&site=eds-

live&scope=site.

“The History of Animal Protection in the United States.” The History of Animal Protection in the

United States | The American Historian. Accessed April 9, 2020.

https://www.oah.org/tah/issues/2015/november/the-history-of-animal-protection-in-

the-united-states/.

“Read ‘Science, Medicine, and Animals’ at NAP.edu.” National Academies Press: OpenBook.

Accessed February 27, 2020. https://www.nap.edu/read/10089/chapter/3.