Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone.

Welcome to this RE lesson.

Today we're going to be working on different religious views about animal experimentation as part of a unit on religion and life.

So in today's lesson, you're going to be explaining different religious and non-religious views on animal experimentation, focusing on key ethical arguments, and the impact on suffering and human health.

In today's lesson, we're going to be using the keywords, animal experimentation, speciesism and suffering.

Animal experimentation refers to the use of animals in scientific research to study biological processes, to test medical treatments, or assess product safety.

Speciesism is the belief that humans are superior to other animals, justifying their use for human benefit, and it's seen by Peter Singer as morally equivalent to racism.

Suffering is the experience of pain or distress.

Today's lesson will take three parts.

We'll be looking at animal experimentation, Christian teachings on animal experimentation, and different views on animal experimentation.

So let's begin by looking at animal experimentation.

Animal experimentation is the use of animals in scientific research to study biological processes, to test medical treatments, or to assess product safety.

There are different examples of this.

Medical research studies diseases and test new drugs.

Toxicology testing checks the safety of chemicals.

Psychological research might test learning, memory, stress and addiction.

And military and space research studies injury effects and responses to things like zero gravity and radiation.

In the UK, the Animals Scientific Procedures Act of 1986, ASPA, requires any experiment causing harm to animals to be licenced.

Scientists must follow the three Rs principles.

Replace animals with alternatives if available and scientifically valid.

Reduce the number of animals used.

Refine procedures to minimise suffering.

Two different species must be used for medical testing, and one must be in non rodent.

Testing on great apes is banned in the UK.

And a drug cannot go to human trials until it has passed animal safety tests.

So I'd like to check your understanding now.

Can you give one legal requirement for animal experimentation? Take your time, jot down your answer, pause the video and come back when you are ready to check.

So you could have said any one of the following.

animal experimentation should be replaced with alternatives where possible.

The number of animals used should be reduced.

Suffering should be minimised.

Two different species must be used for testing.

One must be a non rodent.

Testing on great apes is banned.

And a new drug cannot go to human trials until it has passed animal safety tests.

Well done if you said any one of those.

Sam and Jun are asking some ethical questions about animal experimentation.

Sam says, "Is speciesism "Believing humans are better than animals" a form of prejudice, and therefore is animal experimentation a form of discrimination?" Jun asks, "Do animals have intrinsic value, and should this stop us from using them in experiments, even if it helps humans?" Have a think.

Why might different people have different views on these questions? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do, or you can pause and talk to me and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Aisha and Izzy have been learning about animal experimentation in their biology lessons.

They're discussing its benefits and the alternatives.

Izzy says, "Animal experimentation is used for research and to test medicines because biological similarities between animals and humans means it has good predictive value for human health." Aisha says, "The problem with using animals is that it causes them harm.

In vitro testing, which is an alternative, involves growing cells in laboratory dishes to test how they react to different substances.

It provides data which is relevant to humans." Izzy says, "Well, unfortunately, in vitro testing focuses on studying cells, not whole organisms. Organ-on-a-chip technology uses microchips with living cells to mimic human organs like the liver, lungs, and heart, and some argue it's more accurate and relevant to humans than animal testing." Aisha says, "A downside of organ-on-a-chip technology is it's not available for all organ systems. Another option is computer modelling, which stimulates human biology to predict the effect of drugs, chemicals, or diseases.

It's cost effective and time efficient, but it doesn't replicate the complexity of living organisms." So let's have a think about those alternatives to animal experimentation.

Which of the following is an argument against using computer modelling as an alternative to animal experimentation? Is it A, it focuses on cells, not whole organisms. B, it's not available for all organ systems. C, it causes animals harm.

Or D, it doesn't replicate the complexity of living organisms. Take a moment to have a think about the downside of using computer modelling.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So well done if you put D.

So the difficulty with computer modelling is that it doesn't replicate the complexity of a living organism.

So let's look at a case study that would support using animals for experimentation.

Thalidomide was introduced as a treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women in the 1950s.

As a result of this, thousands of babies were born with severe limb deformities, and as a consequence of that drug testing laws were tightened, so they required them to be tested on two animal species, and if it was a drug intended for pregnant women, it had to be tested on pregnant animals.

So some people claim that human suffering could have been avoided if the drug had been tested on pregnant animals and two different species in the first place.

But others claim that humans and animals react differently anyway so the DA disaster may not have been avoided at all, even with testing on pregnant animals.

Let's have a look at a case study to oppose animal experimentation.

This is called the Silver Spring Monkeys.

In 1981, Edward Taub conducted experiments on 17 macaque monkeys, severing their sensory nerves to study brain plasticity.

The monkeys were kept in poor conditions, and this led to an investigation.

Now, as a result of this case, there was a major animal rights movement, and this helped influence the USA's Animal Welfare Act.

So some argued that the research actually led to breakthroughs in stroke rehabilitation, despite the cruelty that the monkeys suffered.

But others claimed that the suffering was excessive and that alternative methods should have been used.

So there were arguments both to oppose and support animal experimentation.

The humanist philosopher Peter Singer and the Animal Rights Organisation PETA opposed Animal experimentation.

Peter Singer argues animal suffering is equivalent to human suffering, and so for him, speciesism is the same as racism.

And the charity PETA argues that animals have intrinsic rights.

On the other hand, the atheist biologist, Richard Dawkins and the Medical Research Council support animal experimentation.

Dawkins argues that animal experimentation saves lives.

And the Medical Research Council argues that it helps to advance medical knowledge.

So let's check your understanding.

True or false, the thalidomide disaster happened even though the drug was tested on pregnant animals.

So take a moment to think about your answer.

Pause the video and have a think about why you have chosen that option as well.

Come back when you are ready.

So well done if you put false.

Why? Well, it's because thalidomide was not actually tested on pregnant animals before its use in humans, and its birth defect risks were only discovered later after they actually happened, and it was this that led to stricter regulations.

So let's have a look at task A practising your understanding.

Alex is explaining what he's learned about animal experimentation, but he's made some mistakes.

I'd like you to rewrite what he's written with corrections.

Alex wrote, "The Animal's Scientific Procedures Act of 1986 requires a licence for animal experimentation even if animals aren't harmed.

Two animals must be tested and alternatives like cell testing and computer simulations cannot be used.

Ethical questions include whether speciesism is a form of prejudice and if animals have extrinsic value.

Richard Dawkins opposes animal experimentation due to suffering while Peter Singer supports it for medical progress." So take your time and have a think about what you have learned in today's lesson so far.

Look for Alex's mistakes and rewrite with corrections so that it's accurate.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So you could have said, "The Animal Scientific Procedures Act of 1986 requires a licence for animal experimentation if animals are harmed.

Two species must be tested and alternatives like cell testing and computer simulation should be used when they are available and scientifically valid.

Ethical questions include whether speciesism is a form of prejudice and if animals have intrinsic value.

Peter Singer opposes animal experimentation due to suffering while Richard Dawkins supports it for medical progress." So well done if you spotted Alex's mistakes there.

So let's move on to the second part of our lesson and look at Christian teachings on animal experimentation.

Christians try to answer questions such as, "Is animal experimentation acceptable if it benefits humans?" By consulting sources of authority such as the Bible and church teachings.

But they might also use their conscience and reason which they would see as God-given gifts and consider some non-religious arguments whilst they work out what to do.

At the end of the day, Christians may interpret the sources differently or emphasise one more than another.

So let's look at Bible teachings as a source of wisdom and authority.

Genesis 1:28 says, "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number.

Fill the earth and subdue it.

Rule over the fish in the sea and the bird and the sky, and over every living creature that moves on the ground." So this suggests that humans have a duty to look after God's creation, including animals, but it suggests it's more about care and stewardship and not about exploitation.

Psalm 24, verse one says, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world and all who live in it." And this suggests then that God owns everything including animals, so humans must treat animals with respect as caretakers of his creation.

Proverbs 12, verse 10 says, "The righteous care for the need of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." And this suggests that kindness to animals is a sign of righteousness and cruelty to animals is wrong.

Matthew 10:29 to 31 says, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your father's care.

And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered so don't be afraid, you are worth more than many sparrows." So this suggests, whilst how much God cares for human beings, that he still cares for even the smallest creatures so we should perhaps treat all animals with care and respect knowing they are valuable to God.

Let's check your understanding.

What is stewardship? Take a moment to think about how you're gonna answer that question.

Jot down your answer, pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So you should have written something like it being the duty given by God to humankind to look after the created world and all life within it.

Well done if you wrote something similar to that.

You might have used the word, "Responsibility" instead of duty, and you need to have mentioned that it's from God.

So let's have a look at church teachings on animal experimentation.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that humans are stewards of creation and must treat animals with respect.

As a result of that, it does permit ethical animal experimentation.

So that means using it if it's necessary and if it avoids cruelty as much as possible.

But this is only if it contributes to human wellbeing.

Looking at the Methodist view, the Methodist social principles emphasise stewardship, compassion, and ethical responsibility towards creation.

The church accepts animal experimentation if it minimises harm and if it benefits human health, so a very similar view there, focusing more on whether it benefits humans and minimises harm to the animals.

Quakers are committed to peace, equality, and social justice, and this extends to their view on animals.

Quaker Concern for Animals is an organisation that actually campaigns for the prevention of animal cruelty, for the end of factory farming and also for the end of animal experimentation.

So many, not necessarily all Quakers, but many Quakers are committed to trying to end animal experimentation.

Let's check your understanding.

Which denomination is most likely to oppose animal experimentation? Is it A, the Methodist church.

B, the Roman Catholic Church.

C Quakers, known as the Religious Society of Friends.

Or D, the Church of England? Have a think about your answer.

Jot down what you think is the correct one, pause if you need to, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put C, Quakers are most likely to oppose animal experimentation.

So let's practise your knowledge on Christian teachings on animal experimentation.

I'd like you to explain two different religious beliefs in contemporary British society about animal experimentation.

So what this means, because we've just looked at Christianity, is that we're going to look at two different Christian beliefs, and when it says, "Contemporary British society" That just means society today.

The question stem also says, "In your answer, you must refer to the main religious tradition of Great Britain and one or more other religious traditions." So what that means is you must include Christianity, and that's okay 'cause we're doing that anyway in this lesson.

So you're going to be needing to mention one Christian belief about animal experimentation.

It needs to be current or contemporary, and develop it.

And then a second one and develop that.

So this is the suggested guidance.

Point-develop, point- develop.

So take some time, write up your answer, pause the video, and when you're ready, come back to check what you might have written.

So let's have a look at what you could have said.

Most Christian denominations such as the Church of England and Roman Catholicism teach that animal experimentation is acceptable if it leads to medical benefits for humans as long as unnecessary suffering is avoided.

This view is based on the idea of stewardship, where humans have a duty to care for animals but can use them responsibly for human benefit.

Quakers are more likely to oppose animal experimentation, even for medical research.

They emphasise peace, justice, and compassion for all living beings, often extending this to animals.

They might actively participate in campaigns to end animal testing, take actions such as protesting against it, supporting organisations which develop cruelty-free research methods and promoting laws that protect animal welfare.

So well done if you got any of those points there and if you got the explanations as well.

So you might have mentioned stewardship and you might have mentioned actually compassion for other living things.

So let's move on to the third part of our lesson, different views on animal experimentation.

In 2018, a survey asked Americans their views on whether animals should be used in scientific research, and it recorded this in relation to their level of scientific knowledge.

So in total, 52% surveyed opposed the use of animals in scientific research and 47% favoured it.

Now those with high scientific knowledge, 36% opposed and 63% favoured.

Medium levels of scientific knowledge, 54% opposed and 44% favoured.

And low, 62% opposed and 37% favoured.

So have a good look at that data.

What does it tell us about general views on animal experimentation? If you're able to, turn and talk to somebody nearby, pause the video, you can talk to me if you like, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So you might have said that most oppose animal experimentation, but this is only by a small margin.

So why might people with high levels of scientific knowledge be more likely to accept animal experimentation? So again, pause the video and if you can talk to somebody nearby or you can talk to me, and then come back when you'Re ready to move on.

So you might have said that people with high scientific knowledge may support animal experimentation because as people who know about science, they perhaps understand better its benefits and maybe the rules surrounding it as well.

TIA is a Methodist and she's explaining her view on animal experimentation.

Tia says, "the Bible teaches that all of creation is good and that humans have a responsibility to care for it.

Stewardship includes treating animals with respect and ensuring their wellbeing.

I accept that animal experimentation may sometimes be necessary, such as for developing life-saving medicines like the COVID-19 vaccine, but only when alternatives are unavailable and suffering is kept to a minimum.

As Methodists, we are entrusted with the care of all of God's creation and must ensure that animals are treated with dignity and compassion." John is a Quaker and he is explaining his view on animal experimentation.

John says, "I'm generally against animal experimentation as I'm guided by the Quaker principles of peace, non-violence and justice, and I think these apply to animals.

I support Quaker concern for animals, which campaigns for the ethical treatment of animals.

We promote the use of alternatives and are calling for stricter regulation of animal experimentation.

I write petitions, I attend peaceful demonstrations, and I use social media to raise awareness.

I want to reduce animal suffering and support ethical research practises that benefit humanity." So let's check your understanding.

What do most Christians agree on when it comes to animal welfare? Is it A, animals should be experimented on to benefit human health.

B, animal suffering should be reduced.

C, animal testing is never justified under any circumstances.

Or D, only certain species of animals should be used.

So take a moment to decide on your answer, pause if you need to and then come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put B, animal suffering should be reduced.

So regardless of their actual view on whether they should be used in experiments or not, they would all agree that suffering should be reduced as much as possible.

Diane is a humanist and she's explaining her view on animal experimentation.

She says, "As a humanist, I believe any being capable of experiencing pain deserves moral consideration.

I agree with Peter Singer that speciesism is unjust.

I support the British Humanist Association, which campaigns for the ethical treatment of animals in research.

It advocates for laws to limit animal experimentation and promotes alternatives.

I'm involved in petitions, demonstrations, and online advocacy to reduce animal suffering and encourage ethical research practises." Warren is an atheist and he is explaining his view on animal experimentation.

Warren says, "As a scientist involved in animal experimentation, I agree with Richard Dawkins that while humans are not special in a divine sense, animal experimentation is acceptable.

Research using animals has led to life-saving treatments, and I recognise its importance in advancing knowledge.

I also support developing alternatives like in vitro testing and computer simulations to reduce suffering where possible.

However, these methods cannot yet fully replace live research so animal experimentation remains necessary." Let's check your understanding.

Which of the following is a reason why someone might accept animal experimentation? Is it A, animals have intrinsic value and should never be harmed.

B, animal suffering should be avoided in all circumstances.

C, it can lead to medical advancements that benefit humans.

Or D, alternatives are always more effective.

So take a moment, think about your answer, pause the video if you need to and come back when you are ready.

So well done if you put C, it can lead to medical advancements that benefit humans.

So for task C, I'd like you to think about Andeep's answer that he's begun below.

So he's begun to answer an evaluation question.

He's written a paragraph using non-religious arguments in support of the statement.

Here's the full question.

Animal experimentation is acceptable if it benefits humans.

I'd like you to evaluate this statement.

In your answer you should give reasoned arguments in support of this statement.

You should give reasoned arguments to support a different point of view.

You should reflect a religious argument.

You may refer to non-religious arguments and you should reach a justified conclusion.

Now, your evaluation is going to focus on writing the paragraph that comes after Andeep's.

So you're going to read his answer and then you're gonna write the next paragraph using religious arguments to support the statement.

So here's Andeep's paragraph in support of the statement, "Animal experimentation is acceptable if it benefits humans." Andeep writes, "Supporters of animal experimentation argue it is vital for medical progress.

Richard Dawkins highlights the genetic similarities between humans and animals, meaning that without animal experimentation, human lives will be at risk.

The Medical Research Council argues it has led to breakthroughs in treating diseases.

While alternatives exist, they cannot replace live testing." So take your time.

You're going to write your paragraph following on from Andeep's that's part of this larger evaluation question.

And remember, you are going to use religious arguments.

So pause the video, take as long as you need to and come back when you're ready to see what you might have written.

You could have said, "Many Christians accept animal experimentation if it benefits humans as long as suffering is minimised and there are no alternatives.

This view is based on stewardship, the belief that humans have a duty to care for animals while using them responsibly.

They believe God gave humans authority over creation (Genesis 1:26) but should treat animals with kindness, (Proverbs 12:10).

While unnecessary cruelty is rejected, many argue that improving human health aligns with their moral responsibility to help others." So well done if you talked about stewardship, remembering the duty to care, but also the idea that that means you have authority and therefore you can use animals as long as you avoid unnecessary cruelty.

So in today's lesson on different religious views about animal experimentation, we have learned that animal experimentation is using animals for scientific research.

That ethical concerns include whether animals should suffer and whether they have intrinsic value.

That the UK law requires licences for animal experimentation that cause harm and encourages the use of non-animal alternatives, that most Christian denominations support animal experimentation if suffering is minimised, while others such as Quakers may not.

Non-religious arguments highlight animal suffering and also the potential benefits for humans.

Alternatives are being developed but still have limitations.

Thank you for your hard work and for working with me today on different religious views about animal experimentation.