The principle of nonmaleficence states that it is a general obligation to do no gratuitous harm to sentient creatures. The principle of beneficence states that there is a general obligation to do good to sentient creatures when that is reasonably within one's powers. And if nothing else, one should at least act humanely (Cohen 105-106). However, Unitarians hold different views on the rights of animals. They reason that since various kinds of research on humans is immoral due to the cause of pain or an infringement on freedom or simply violates some basic interest or right of man, it is logical to conclude that the same should apply to animals as well unless one can cite a morally relevant difference that characterizes the animal (Rollin 137). With either view, it is clear that in cases benefiting mankind, animal experimentation is condonable.
Animal activists find that experimentation can be more a problem then a benefactor. They feel that it only delays time till testing on people can begin. Animal experimentation can have mixed results because of the differences in the human and non-human physiology. This makes testing results unreliable in predicting a substance's reaction on a person (Carlson 73-74). Many drugs that have minor or no side effects on animals have provoked extreme reactions in humans (Carlson 75). Though this is true in some cases, the majority of the tests conducted give scientists and researcher a better idea of what they are dealing with. In addition, activists also point out the huge sums of money that goes into testing each year. According to the National Institutes of Health, at least forty percent of its grants currently have animal components (Carlson 82). Nevertheless, it would cost the government a lot more if the tests were conducted on people instead of animals. In response, activists suggested using prison volunteers in non-therapeutic research.
