Animal experiments and drug safety Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that. Instead, they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people. Animal experiments eliminate some potential drugs as either ineffective or too dangerous to use on human beings.
Suggested Further Readings 1. The Problems of Animal Thought and Reason Given what we know or can safely assume to be true of their behaviors and brains, can animals have thought and reason? The answer depend in large measure on what one takes thought and reason to be, as well as what animals one is considering.
Philosophers have held various views about the nature and possession conditions of thought and reason and, as a result, have offered various arguments for and against thought and reason in animals. Below are the most influential of such arguments. Reason Hume defined as a mere disposition or instinct to form associations among such ideas on the basis of past experience.
In the section of A Treatise of Human Nature entitled, "Of the Reason of Animals," Hume argued by analogy that since animals behave in ways that closely resemble the behaviors of human beings that we know to be caused by associations among ideas, animals also behave as a result of forming similar associations among ideas in their minds.
Beliefs have propositional content, whereas ideas, as Hume understood them, do not or need not. To have a belief or thought about some object for example, the color red always involves representing some fact or proposition about it for example, that red is the color of bloodbut one can entertain an image of something for example, the color red without representing any fact or proposition about it.
Also, beliefs aim at the truth, they represent states of affairs as being the case, whereas ideas, even vivid ideas, do not. And it is further argued, insofar as "belief" fails to be definable in terms of vivid ideas presented to consciousness, "reason" fails to be definable in terms of a disposition to form associations among such ideas; for whatever else reason might be, so the argument goes, it is a surely a relation among beliefs.
Toy robotic dogs, computers, and even radios behave in ways that are similar to the ways that human beings behave when we have vivid ideas presented to our consciousness, but few would take this fact alone as incontestable proof that these objects act as a result of vivid ideas presented to their consciousness Searle Normal adult human beings, of course, express their occurrent thoughts through their declarative speech; and declarative speech and occurrent thoughts share some important features.
Rather, Descartes concluded, the best explanation for the absence of speech in animals is the absence of what speech expresses—thought. There are various places in his writings where Descartes appears to go on from this conclusion to maintain that since all modes of thinking and consciousness depend upon the existence of thought, animals are devoid of all forms of thinking and consciousness and are nothing but mindless machines or automata.
It should be noted, however, that not every commentator has accepted this interpretation see Cottingham Malcolmfor example, argued that dispositional thinking is not dependent upon occurrent thought, as Descartes seemed to suppose, and is clearly possessed by many animals.
The fact that Fido cannot entertain the thought, the cat is in the tree, Malcolm argued, is not a reason to doubt that he thinks that the cat is in the tree. Others Hauser et al. And others Pepperberg ; Savage-Rumbaugh et al. For Descartes, to act through reason is to act on general principles that can be applied to an open-ended number of different circumstances.
For example, honey bees that were trained to fly down a corridor that had the same or different color as the entry room into which they had initially flown automatically transferred this knowledge to the novel stimulus dimension of smell: On this view of intelligence, sometimes called the massive modularity thesis, subjects have various distinct mechanisms, or modules, in their brains for solving problems in different domains for example, a module for solving navigation problems, a module for solving problems in the physical environment, a module for solving social problems within a group, and so on.
It is not to be expected on this theory of intelligence that an animal capable of solving problems in one domain, such as exclusion problems for food, should be capable of solving similar problems in a variety of other domains, such as exclusion problems for predators, mates, and offspring. In a series of articles,Davidson put forward three distinct but related arguments against animal thought and reason: The Intensionality Test The intensionality test rest on the assumption that the contents of beliefs and thought in general are finer grained than the states of affairs they are about.
The belief that Benjamin Franklyn was the inventor of bifocals, for example, is not the same as the belief that the first postmaster general of the US was the inventor of bifocals, even though both beliefs are about the same state of affairs.
This fine-grained nature of belief content is reflected in the sentences we use to ascribe them.
Thus, the sentence, "Sam believes that Benjamin Franklyn was the inventor of bifocals," may be true while the sentence, "Sam believes that the first postmaster general of the US was the inventor of bifocals," may be false. Belief ascriptions that have this semantic feature—that is, their truth value may be affected by the substitution of co-referring expressions within their "that"-clauses—are called intensional or semantically opaque.
The reason that is typically given for why belief ascriptions are intensional is that their purpose is to describe the way the subject thinks or conceives of some object or state of affairs. Belief ascriptions with this purpose are called de dicto ascriptions, as opposed to de re ascriptions see below.
Our de dicto belief ascriptions to animals are unjustified, Davidson argued, since for any plausible de dicto belief ascription that we make there are countless others and no principled way of deciding which is the correct way of describing how the animal thinks.
Take, for instance, the claim that Fido believes that the cat is in the tree. It seems that one could just as well have said that Fido believes that the small furry object is in the tree, or that the small furry object is in the tallest object in the yard, and so on. And yet there does not appear to be any objective fact of the matter that would determine the correct translation into our language of the way Fido thinks about the cat and the tree.
Davidson concludes that "unless there is behaviour that can be interpreted as speech, the evidence will not be adequate to justify the fine distinctions we are used to making in attribution of thought"p. Such philosophers reject this principle on the grounds that absence of proof of what is thought is not thereby proof of the absence of thought.
But Davidson himself states that he is not appealing to such a principle in his argumentp. Rather, he takes the argument to undermine our intuitive confidence in our ascriptions of de dicto beliefs to animals.
However, even on this interpretation of the intensionality test, objections have been raised.In principles and teaching of Christianity, human experimentation and testing on animals is a domain of modern science that evokes immensely violent reaction and extreme contempt.
It functions on three basic principles of Refining, Replacing and Reducing which also indicate a degree of animal suffering but to minimalistic level. ScienceDirect is the world's leading source for scientific, technical, and medical research.
Explore journals, books and articles. UN News produces daily news content in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Kiswahili, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish, and weekly programmes in Hindi, Urdu and Bangla. Our multimedia service, through this new integrated single platform, updates throughout the day, in text, audio and video – also making use of quality images and other media .
Summary: Animal “rights” is of course not the only philosophical basis for extending legal protections to animals. Another, competing, basis is based on the theory of utilitarianism – the outright rejection of rights for all species and instead advocacy for equal consideration.
Help Save Wildlife. By as many as one fifth of all animal species may be lost, gone forever. In recent times, hundreds of species have become extinct as a result of human .
Outline principles that define the Biological Level of Analysis.
Introduction. State what you are doing in the essay This essay will give a brief summary of the principles that define the biological level of analysis.