Is using humans for clinical trials more ethical than animal testing?

At least 100 million animals died in U.S. laboratories. Should we think something about it? What do Ethics say in this case? Why the animal suffering is not the scientific answer?

Once upon a time in a dark age of our human story, a group of scientists decided to experiment with humans. The clinical trials were inhuman and produce pain, injuries or death. At least 1200 people were used for medical testing and half of them died in the hands of the nazis. This human story’s mournful chapter lead us to what we know as the Nuremberg Code, a medical statue which was the first document against involuntary human testing.

The Nuremberg Code

This code talks about the consent any experiment should have before testing on humans and set rules about the nature of these experiments.For example, it shouldn’t be a random subject, this kind of trial should have a human purpose and should guarantee to minimize secondary damage. The Nuremberg code brings ethics to science for serious, since these rules appear we start asking what is the best for humanity but also the human beings, that’s why human testing has so many rules. But nowadays, science stopped using humans and starts doing trials on animals. But is it ethical? It is the right use animal who can’t know what is going to happen or can give any consent but also feels all the effects just as a human being?

First, let’s see what ethics have been saying about animal testing lately? The rules on human testing are built on this principle: “Experiment on animals is acceptable if only and only if suffering is minimized in all experiment”. This looks like an interesting premise, but when a group of scientists grew up an ear on rat’s back in 1997 we get this “law” was not enough. At least 100 million animals are killed in U.S. laboratories. Why should we do about it?

The reason why scientists use animals

Why do scientists need to test on animals? The scientist’s method proof one product or medicament in a group of dogs, rabbits and rats. Maybe, the first version of this product killed the first groups of animals, then they proof the other version in another group of animals, and suppose only the rats die, and they proof again the third version of this product, and all the animals survive. Then, they scientists know that this can be tested on healthy strong humans. That’s how science used to work. The most common trial of these kinds is with makeup and beauty products, scientists of each brand proof it on animals. But did you now that thousands of rabbits are used as guinea pigs with products like eyeliner? The test is very simple, but is it ethical? Scientists put this makeup products on the rabbit’s eyes and skin. If everything works it must not happen anything but if the product has something wrong this animal will suffer a lot.

Brands used to do these to prevent human injuries. But what about animals? Why do scientists use animals for trials as they don’t have any feeling. And it’s very hard to get it, we are the human race which sends dogs to space without any surviving chances.

Maybe at first, animal testing was a good idea for not using humans. But what about now when science had created more than 50 alternative testing ideas. Inspired in three principles replace, reduce and refines the use of animals. Human Blood, special cells, Epic Skin and biological ideas for not testing on animals. This is the ethical way, because if you can avoid the suffering of animals you must do it.

But when in specific medical cases, such as a pandemic case like Coronavirus when 3% of the population who gets the virus is dying. What should humanity do? According to ethics, it’s easy to get this concept with an example (Yeah, this is so philosophical thing)

If you see a kid drowning in a pool and you don’t do anything you are so guilty as if you take the kid and drown him in the pool with your own hands. So if science could do something against all the virus and sickness that kills humanity they have to, and they will be guilty if not. So just in this case where there is no other option a human’s life is in danger is acceptable from the ethical point of view to test on animals.