Argument

As new medicines and treatments are constantly developed, scientists

attempt numerous experiments to see if the medicines work for human bodies.
However, there has been controversy on testing human subjects. While some people
insist that humans should not be tested for any types of medical or scientific
experiments, other groups of people assert that humans are the most suitable
subjects for medical or scientific research. Both groups contend several salient
points in their arguments that we cannot ignore such as side effects that come along
with experiments and issues of human rights. I am of two minds about testing
humans as research subjects. On the one hand, I agree that humans should not be
the testing subjects because of their rights and side effects that the participants have
to bear. On the other hand, I question the effectiveness of testing other subjects such
as animals for humans advantage because their body reaction is different.
It is essential to test recently developed medicines or medication in order to
ascertain the most applicable result before they are prescribed or used for patients.
As a research process, not only humans are tested, but scientists also manipulate
animals. Unlike with animal subjects, those who are willing to be tested for new
medicines or treatments volunteer for the experiments; yet, there is an argument
during the process of volunteering. It is true that people, who enlist for an
examination, are to sign the consent form which demonstrates that they are the ones
who are usually responsible for their lives in case of side effects. Yet it is hard to say
that they can be responsible for their lives. Bob Weinhold insists in his journal
Putting People to the Test that the volunteers often do not have a complete
understanding on what will be happening as they participate in the test (Weinhold,

484). Even though they receive the consent form to sign, they agree to the form not
knowing how badly it might affect them. However, it is true that the form would
include the list of the possible side effects, but the participants are not aware of the
seriousness of reaction.
Nevertheless, although those who are volunteered for testing might not have
enough information on how the experiment will go on, they still have basic
information about the fact that there will be crucial side effects that they ought to be
responsible for. David B. Resnik and Christopher Portier claim in their journal called
Pesticide Testing on Human Subjects: Weighing Benefits and Risks that it is
unnecessary to initiate experiments that are not scientifically necessary (Resnik &
Portier, 815). What they argue is that since humans are engaged in certain scientific
fields which might cause harms on humans, the experiments are necessary in order
to prevent the negative influence that might impact other people. If it does not affect
humans, there is no need for scientists to focus on researching for solutions, and this
is one of the reasons why humans should be involved in medical research.
The reason why human subjects are recommended as more adequate test
subjects is because the purpose of the majority of medical research is for humans. In
these days, animals are also used as test subjects to see both side effects and
benefits. However, it is hard to say that they are applicable for the purpose of
experiments. Apart from the issues of animal rights, animals do have different organ
structures. Even though scientists can find similar species with humans, those kinds
cannot meet the expected standards. Geoff Watts states in his journal, Animal
Testing: Is It Worth It?, that according to antivivisectionists, animals are not
appropriate for medical research (Watts, 182). He discusses that there are superior

replacements to animal subjects, which means that using animals as testing subjects
is not effective enough (182). If using animal subjects was satisfactory, scientists
would not have to have human subjects to finalize and confirm their research.
Hence, although animal subjects are generally used in medical research, they need
to be substituted for other subjects.
Another reason why humans should be testing subjects is that there are some
diseases that are hard to find among animals. In order to figure out whether the
newly developed medicines work, the disease cells should be input to the animals
bodies. Nevertheless, the results might vary because of the organ structures of
animals. As a process, the scientists input the disease cells in the animals bodies so
that they can insert discovered vaccines or medication. In this procedure, animal
lovers show ferocious reaction because they insist that animals do have their rights
to be protected. They claim that since animals have emotions and thoughts just like
humans do, animals deserve their rights to keep themselves away from harms.
However, Kelly Oliver argues that animals are objects of comparison when people
denigrate humans (214). She takes the perspectives of feminists to defend her
opinion. She mentions, Just as feminists have asked why women have to be like
men in order to be equal, we can ask, Why do animals have to be like us to have
inherent value? (217). She insists that animals do not have to be like humans in
order for animals to have rights. She also points out that we are not sure if rights are
what animals desire to have, while rights are the things that humans cannot deny
(217). Just like her opinion, we should not let animals have the things that we want in
our world.
Frankly speaking, it is absurd to give animals the same quality of life that we
deserve and desire because, as it is mentioned earlier, we cannot give them rights

until we are sure of that they actually do want their rights. It is true that human rights
should also be respected and protected in order for them to exercise their rights, but
that does not mean that scientists have to be responsible for the side effects that
volunteers face during medical experiments. It was the decision of the volunteers to
participate in the research, and that is how they are using their rights.
Speaking of animal rights, there are groups of people who support animals to
have rights for animals protection. It is true that animals are often mistreated by
some people in certain cases, and animal testing may be considered as one of them.
However, Kelly Oliver asserts the opposite opinion in her journal, What Is Wrong
with (Animal) Rights with those who are for animal rights. She states that,
animal rights are likened to (or distinguished from) civil rights for women and
people of color. What these philosophers do not consider when developing
analogies between women and animals is that the exploitation and denigration of
people traditionally involve viewing them as animals, treating them like animals,
and justifying their inferior status on the basis of their supposed animality or
proximity to the animal (Oliver, 214).

What she is insisting is that most of the times when humans are viewed or depicted
in as animals, humans are degraded and denigrated, which means is that being
considered as animals is such a humiliation to humans. For example, slaves and
women were reflected as the lowest and the terms that represented them were
originated from animals. It is a little absurd to give animals rights since they are
comparison targets in negative ways until now. For instance, people still use insulting
terms to degrade women, including pussy, bunny, chick, and so on (215). Regarding
this circumstance, people already have belittled the value of animals by using them
as insulting words for humans. It is an irony situation to claim for animal rights while

we use animals as denigrating terms. Hence, there is no significant difference

between using animals as testing subjects and abusing their names in offensive
ways. It is true that testing them as research subjects may bring more severe results
such as death, but I believe that verbal abuse is one of the ways to kill them.
Saving ones life requires a long process; but during that procedure, people
often argue about rights and wrongs. Humans are used as testing subjects for
medical research, and it has been a critical issue in our society because the
experiments that the participants are to join may have severe side effects. I have
mixed minds about this circumstance because of several reasons such as side
effects that the subjects have to take and the problem of human rights. When
considering humans benefits only, humans should be the testing subjects since the
purpose of testing them is for humans advantageous life. Even though there are
other available testing subjects such as animals, because of their difference in body
structures, the results may be confusing. It eventually leads scientists attempt on
human subjects anyway. Also, even though scientists find it effective to use animals
as their testing subjects, they have to inject the virus and then try other treatments
and medication. Although they may work for animals, they might have side effects in
human bodies.
Moreover, some people might insist that human rights should be protected
because the purpose of the majority of research is for a qualified life of humans.
They often assert that animals should be used rather than humans; but animal lovers
disagree with this idea because they contend rights of animals. However, animal
rights are different from those of humans, because the concept of rights cannot be
applied to animals. Oliver argues that we cannot give them rights since we do not
know if they desire for their rights while humans cannot live without them. In addition,

animals are already being humiliated as people use their names in an insulting way
of calling people. This situation means that people are not even respecting their
existence, and it is illogical to fight for their rights. Therefore, it is hard to say that
animals need their own rights to use as they live.
I believe that human subjects are better for medical research. Yet, as long as
humans volunteer for medical research, it is important to praise their sacrificial
actions since they are taking risks so that patients who are suffering from certain
diseases can have a new life. It is true that they may face the worst side effect which
is death, but through their sacrifice, lives of many are saved.

Bibliography
Animal Testing: Is It Worth It? Geoff Watts BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 334,
No.
7586 (Jan. 27, 2007), pp. 182-184.
Pesticide Testing on Human Subjects: Weighing Benefits and Risks, David B. Resnik
and Christopher Portier, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. &
(Jul, 2005), pp. 813-817.

Putting People to the Test, Bob Weinhold, Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol.
109, No. 10 (Oct., 2001), pp. A482-A485.
What Is Wrong with (Animal) Rights?, Kelly Oliver, The Journal of Speculative
Philosophy, New Series, Vol. 22, No. 3, Symposium II: Words, Bodies, War
(2008), pp. 214-224.