Social Science:
Sociology 1010 Introduction to Sociology
An estimated 100 million animals annually suffer and die in drug, food, cosmetic tests, medical exercises, and biology lessons. The entire world participates in this kind of testing; the most common users of animal testing are businesses ranging from: household products; cosmetics; government agencies; and scientific centers, who all use animals to experiment on. There are not any exact numbers because mice, rats, and other cold-blooded animals are mainly used in experiments. These animals are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act and therefore are not counted. This controversial topic is difficult to answer because it is weighed by the value of animals against what may be viewed as a necessity for human life, and what is crossing the line into animal cruelty. To help understand this debatable topic, we must consider the pros and cons by explaining it with the three perspectives: symbolic interactionism; functionalism; and conflict theories.
The symbolic interactionist perspective on this issue of animal experimentation will be viewed differently by every individual depending on their backgrounds and their moral values. For the people who side with the researchers and scientists that are involved with testing on animals might be viewed as “animal killers.” An UCLA researcher, Edythe London, argues “the benefits to humans provided by animal testing outweigh the risk to animals” (Dan Bluemel 2011). She also stated how her and her colleagues take into consideration the animal’s welfare. A symbolic interactionist would consider reality when discussing this conflict. Realists would feel that animals are simply not human and their treatment would be less than perfect.
On the other hand others may feel animals are “equals” based on their own sense of reality. Individuals who believe in this reality and are involved in organizations like the well known PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are labeled as “animal activists.” PETA interacts with society by sending strong messages to the public, “It is sometimes necessary to shake people up in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action” (peta.org). Because the media is perceived as not always finding PETA’s message as interesting and serious as it should be, PETA believes they must create big and bold statements to get their message out to the world.
The functionalist perspective would look at how the benefits of animal testing help society. If animals were not used for research we would not have all the medical advances we have today like vaccines, antibiotics, and medical devices like the pacemaker. Animals are used because they are the most similar species to us, their bodies respond to diseases and treatment close to ours. “Animal research has contributed to 70 percent of Nobel prizes for physiology or medicine. Without it, we would –medically speaking- be stuck in the Dark Ages” (Colin Blakemore 2011). For example, researchers in Seattle developed an electronic brain implant that was used on a paralyzed monkey to help move its limbs. This invention helps give hope to those who are paralyzed. The Humane Society of the United States says an estimated 6 to 8 million cats and dogs enter shelters each year (HSUS 2009). Dogs and cats that are euthanized annually are estimated around 3 to 4 million (HSUS 2009). It is clear that the animal population is very over populated; there are not enough good homes for animals. Animal testing could serve as a function with the over population of homeless animals.
Another functionalist perspective would be that animal experimentation ultimately benefits animals in the long run by making people aware of the treatment of animals for science. This would develop a movement to change laws and ban animal experimentation; this would create unity within with a specific group of people within society. Creating awareness of the issue would encourage people to spay and neuter their animals to prevent unwanted litters. It would also serve as a benefit for people by developing jobs such as opening animal sanctuaries or other rescue organizations.
The conflict perspective concerning the issue of animal experimentation is obviously the moral conflict of animal cruelty and abuse. The first issue debated is the decrease of human suffering, which to most would be top priority. There is a good chance that experiments tested on animals will result in a medical breakthrough that can help humans. The other side of this debate is that animals should be treated like beings that are valued, and not for being scientific experiments. Also, another issue debated within this topic is that animals are the most similar species to humans. “Human beings share about 99% of their genes with chimpanzees and only slightly fewer with other monkeys” (Thomas Dixon 2000). Dixon also writes that it would be more immoral for people to risk the life of humans when medicine or procedures could first be tested on “non-human” animals. The majority of animals used in experiments are nothing close to humans. For example, mice are mostly used to see what a chemical will do to a subject’s flesh. The animals that are more similar to humans and are used for experiments like the chimpanzees; the more immoral it becomes. These animals are intelligent and share certain characteristics like the ability to love and care for each other just as humans do.
The three perspectives all play an important role to help understand animal experimentation and the benefits and the dysfunctions of this topic. Though symbolic interactionism contributes to the understanding, it is not the best because it is unable to explain the problem entirely. The symbolic interactionist’s perspective is able to explain the interactions between the entities that have been created in a society for and against animal research. On the other hand, this perspective paints the animal research debate in such a “black and white” way, and it appears as though individual bias could certainly influence an objective perspective. This perspective deals with individual opinions too much; there is much more involved than people’s opinion as to the use or treatment of animals.
The functionalist’s perspective is the second best because it is reality- based and explains that human life should be top priority and there should be no negative consequences for trying to better people’s lives. This perspective tends to weigh to one side of the debate. It is pro animal testing and can define the benefits of animal testing but does not deal with animal cruelty, as well as how animals are perceived merely as objects for human use.
This leaves the conflict perspective as the best perspective to explain the controversial topic of animal experimentation. It is easy to understand why people feel it is an immoral practice, but also is able to justify why people believe the benefits of animal testing outweighs the immorality of it. It draws a defined line between the two philosophies that are in conflict, and the beliefs of each viewpoint. This perspective is able to explain the differences clearly so that society is able to develop an understanding of the debate and generate their own opinions.
Reflective:
I am currently working on my associates degree while I decide what I am going to major in. I took sociology 1010 for an elective credit. I thought sociology was very interesting and I learned a lot during the course. I learned about the functions of a society, family life, positive and negative sanctions, the differences men and women have, and the three perspectives. My signature assignment was my theoretical perspective paper, I chose the controversial topic of animal experimentation. I wanted to know if the pros of animal testing really outweigh the cons. At first, I had a hard time writing this paper because I didn't have a good grasp on the three perspectives symbolic, functionalist, and conflict theories and how to apply them. Now that I understand how to use the perspectives, I feel it will be something useful I can use in the future.
