Whenever there is a new product or theory that someone comes up with, it is most likely going to be tested on an animal. Harry Harlow’s is a prime example as he tested out a theory on monkeys do to their biological compatibility with humans. His experiments were undoubtedly unethical and show that animals can be grossly mistreated during testing periods. Harlow’s research was conducted in order to see if love comes from touch or if it comes from nutritional value. However testing this theory on animals is unethical and should have never been allowed. Indeed Harry Harlow’s was a questionable crazy and heartless man. The rhesus monkeys that he tested on and used for research were poorly mistreated. They underwent being taken from their …show more content…
Indeed no animal should have to go through terrible conditions in which they are helpless and depend upon the researchers to take care of them and get little to no care just for the sake of scientific research. For example “the real mother macaques, realizing their babies were being stolen, screaming and banging their heads against the cage; the infants choo-chooing as they were hurled into a separate space. […] The cages were smeared gold with grief, the infant macaques all balled over themselves with their tails held high to show their tiny oozing anuses” (Slater137). It is clear that the monkeys were undergoing lots of stress, and yet none of the researchers did anything to lower their stress and anxiety. Specifically “the researchers tried to attach the masked ball to the surrogate mother, and the infant screamed in horror, rushed to a corner of its cage, rocked violently, grasping it’s raw genitals” (Slater139). Additionally this poor rhesus monkeys was purposely put into an uncomfortable situation, therefore showing that these tests were unethical. Namely “the iron Maiden was a special surrogate mother Harlow had designed; she shot out sharp spikes and blasted her babies with air so cold and forceful the infants were thrown back against the bars of their cages, clinging and screaming” (Slater140). About a year after the research had started,
The types of experiments performed at the University of Buffalo and the University of California depicts just some of the few horrors of animal testing. According to the article, during these experimentations the eyes of monkeys were implanted with metal coils into their eye sockets in order to study movement ("Update: Animal Testing"). Often times animals are tested upon in laboratories, living in cold isolated environments. The moral aspect of the debate, is whether or not animals should be utilized and later euthanized for the purpose of human benefit, especially when only one party decides. As a resu...
The cost, in this experiment, was the separation of a baby monkey from its mother. Also, it was forced to endure inhumane conditions by being frightened, not knowing what it did to deserve such treatment. I understand the positive implications that can result from experiments on animals, but only the tests that are absolutely necessary should be performed. In saying this, Harry Harlow crossed the line when he caused the baby monkeys psychological scarring. He had already collected definitive data from the previous wire and cloth mother tests, so this extra step was not called
Animals should not be used as test subjects for any research. The innocent and helpless animals’ rights are being violated when they are involved during animal experimentation. These unfortunate animals do not have a choice whether or not they want to be involved in testing. They are not intended for people to experiment on for their own selfish reasons. It is not right to take advantage of the animals because they are helpless and cannot protect themselves. Animals and humans have similarities; they both behave, feel, think, and experience pain. Therefore, animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. The pain and suffering an animal is forced to endure is not worth any new product. It is cruel and inhumane to take advantage of an innocent animal. These tests that use animals to ensure the safety of products are extremely common without people even knowing about it. It is not fair to these animals to abuse their beauty. They are helpless and cannot control what is happening to them. Animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of animals and harms or even kills the animals.
In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a heavily debated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains uncertain. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity.
Nonetheless, animal enthusiasts request the banishment of animal experimentation in the laboratory. Unlike in the past century, both views have finally reached an agreement in this debate: as of now, a limited amount of rodents, or primates, such as white mice and rhesus monkeys can be tested in the laboratory. Which begs the question, why are these selected fews continue to be subject to gruesome experimentation unlike their brethren? Additionally, their moral status is lesser than other fauna, and shouldn’t they instead receive the same respect as well?
The information that animals have provided scientists over the past decades has changed society, and is still changing society for the better. Millions of lives have been saved with the use of animal testing and many more will be saved with continued research. However, there are many who dismiss this monumental achievement completely and oppose the use of animals in laboratory research. Though many find this practice to be
An article written by an animal researcher and psychology professor discusses the lack of ethical treatment towards primates in research labs. The author of Second Thoughts of an Animal Researcher, John P. Gluck, justified the unethical treatment of primates by believing that scientific advancements are superior to the harm the primates experienced. One day a student of his presented a dissertation about a female rhesus monkey who unexpectedly passed away. The dissertation caused Gluck to feel that the animals he caused much harm to were more than objects used to create data. Although he tried to continually justify his actions, he eventually felt guilty and decided that the primates deserve to be handled ethically. Throughout the article,
Back in the 1850s, Charles Darwin proposed a theory suggesting animals be an appropriate model to facilitate more accurate biological understandings for the human race. Since then, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, dogs, cats, mice, rabbits, etc. have been tested on in laboratories in the hope of gaining a better knowledge of the human body. With that being said, many arguments have risen in relationship to this topic. Some of which claim to be the advances in medicine that have occurred since animal testing has begun, while others focus on the inhumane tactics and procedures that these helpless animals endure. As a result, this hot topic continues to be argued with no resolutions. In the meantime, multitudes of animals continue to die in laboratories. To focus on one specific animal, being nonhuman primates, one may look at the similar DNA patterns in comparison to humans. The 98% similitude causes researchers and scientists to believe that these are prime candidates to test on. As a result,
...xploitation are acceptable in society. Furthermore, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Moreover, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experimentation. And last but not least, those of who believe animal experimentation is wrong can chose not to purchase products that have been tested on animals.
“The question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But can they suffer?” (Bentham). Each year over a hundred million animals endure a number of experiments in an attempt to make human lives easier. These experiments range from cosmetic testing to medical research, sadly neither of these tests are needed. Many people will accept animal research because they believe that these animals aren’t suffering (“Harm and Suffering”) or they believe that animal testing in beneficial to humans. In reality, these animals suffer for mankind, when the need does not exist. Animal testing creates unnecessary pain and suffering for animals, when in reality most experiments will not benefit human health.
In “11 Facts About Animal Testing,” the author compiles various facts he/she found during his/her research on animal testing: “92% of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don’t work.” Humans react much differently to the products that pass during animal trials due to the anatomical variations between the species. The results the scientists reach most of the time do not even work. The testing that is done is essentially useless and a waste of time. Likewise, author Rhiannon also says that the testing does not achieve the goal in many instances, she concludes: “This is confirmed by scientific reviews that show correlations between the results of animal experimentation and human outcomes are negligible, expensive and unnecessary. Most animal experiments do not translate to clinical trials, are not validated, minimally cited, and use methodologies that render findings as unreliable.” The second major factor is the cost of testing on animals. It is expensive for the company and it rarely works. Better options are available compared to the companies wasting money on animal testing when there being a high chance the product will fail in the human testing trials
Animal Research has become very dominant leading to over 25 million animals being involved. The issue regarding if this tactic is proper is controversial. Animal testing can lead to new treatments for certain diseases, such as breast cancer or childhood leukemia. However, many downsides play into the fact that animals are being used for scientific research. Animal experimentation should not be allowed and takes part in using cruel aspects such as deprivation of food and water which can lead to a decreasing population in specific species of animals.
Animals hold an important spot in many of our lives. Some people look at animals as companions, and others see them as a means of experimental research and medical advancement. With the interest of gaining knowledge, physicians have dissected animals. The ethics of animal testing have always been questioned because humans do not want to think of animals on the same level as humans. Incapable of our thinking and unable to speak, animals do not deserve to be tested on by products and be conducted in experiments for scientific improvement.
Experimentation has been performed on animals such as rats, mice, and primates in testing various products from cosmetics to drugs. The experimentation of animals usually involves pumping a substance into the animal’s stomach or applying it to the skin and eyes; they are confined to cages and not allowed the freedom of their natural way of life. According to a report by PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals),” this causes great stress and discomfort to the animals (2011).” The animals may not die, but they are scared and maimed for the rest of their lives. Practices such as this are still used today even though there are cheaper and more conclusive ways of conducting this testing; in vitro (test tube), genomic, computer modeling technique, and human volunteering. These research methods are more humane, cost effective alternatives to animal testing. “The harms to the animal conflict with perceived societal benefits that will result if ...
Such medical experimentations on monkeys created severe health problems and infected wounds, bones sticking, chewed-off fingers and toes as well as even resulted to death. For instance, at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, “monkeys were forced and even given electric shocks to run on a treadmill” (Owen 45). Such harsh and unethical human actions and abuse of monkeys for humans’ life betterment are unjustifiable as Regan states "fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us--to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money” (Lehman Hugh). Scientists do monkeys’ experiments in lab because of their large supply available and other economic advantages such as low cost. The economic advantages of monkeys enabled scientists to keep them for long period in the lab and use them many times for drug tests. Unavailability of a global comprehensive principle to deal with animal experiments such as medical research on monkeys allowed scientists to put the life of them at risk and the monkeys’ generation at destruction. Also such medical experiments on monkeys increased potential risk of infecting other monkeys and animals the humans’ deceases. Additionally, Many of the researches have done on monkeys do not apply to humans, because they have had adverse effects on humans. The side-effect on humans implies that while humans and