Dangerous. Expensive. Unreliable. These are all facets of animal testing, which has been a widespread practice since the early 1900s. In experimental research from Professors Ari Joffre, Meredith Bara, Natalie Anton and Nathan Nobis, 84% of the public and 72% of medical school students responded in favor of alternative research methods over using animals (Joffre et al., 2016, 4). However, the study did not delve into whether people think it is more justified to experiment with some species over others. For example, most citizens would be stronger supporters of canine rights over those of mice. This essay will assert that testing on all types of animals is objectionable due to the pain that the subjects undergo, negative environmental and health …show more content…
According to Aysha Akhtar, in her scholarly journal article “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation,” there are two strong points as to why animal research data might not accurately depict human conditions. First, Akhtar points out that, “Laboratory procedures and conditions exert influences on animals’ physiology and behaviors” (Akhtar, 2015, 408). The laboratory setting is much different from most species’ homes. From being locked in a cage and not being able to experience outside weather conditions to being watched by researchers and having to tolerate the sounds they make, test subjects go through a lot of distress. By being taken from their homes and put in a scary, new environment, animals often face contagious anxiety (Akhtar, 2015, 408). With a raised blood pressure as well as other changes in physiology, test results can be affected drastically. The second key point that Akhtar raises is that the anatomy and genes of many animal species are different from that of humans (Akhtar, 2015, 409). Therefore, animals are not perfect models of the human condition. As explored earlier from Ryder’s essay, animals are often given the specific health problem that needs to be tested. However, the test subjects do not always experience the additional side effects from the disease that humans do, or it is difficult to test the medication on different phases of the disease. For example, Akhtar brings up the challenge of testing treatments for strokes with nonhuman subjects (Akhtar, 2015, 409). Larger test groups must be used, with both male and female animals of different ages that had specific health issues from the start. With consumer products, there are allergies that humans may have that cannot be studied through animals. Physical factors, such as texture of hair, are not always the same with humans and nonhumans, but animals can still be expected to test
Every year over 100 million animals die in the US; the cause for these deaths, animal testing. This injustice to animals involves testing products such as medical drugs or makeup, on poor imprisoned animals that don’t have the ability to stand for their own rights as most of us do. Animals used for testing are given products that may result in burning, poisoning, or death. These animals are forced to live in confined spaces where they wait until the next horrible experiment. They are, tortured beyond imagination as they are sometimes even cut open while they are alive (know as vivisection), either with expired analgesics or even without them.
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
This is important because understanding the way in which this happens, attitudes towards animal testing, are formed and how they spread will likely have an impact on public policy on animal welfare and animal rights activism. The information presented and the results will justify my view on animal testing and why it should be banned from scientific reasonings. (75 words)
Testing animals is used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medicinal drugs, check the safety of products intended for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and healthcare roles. The earliest recordings of animal studies date back to Aristotle, who discovered the anatomical differences among animals by analyzing them (Introduction). Advocates of animal testing say that it has enabled the growth of numerous medical advancements, tests to see if new products are save for mankind, acquisition of new scientific knowledge, and because it is accurate (B). Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to try out on animals, many animals die from the animal testing, it’s unethical, animals don’t have a say in it, the accuracy is in question because they are testing animals and not humans, and the toll of animal testing is high (B). Through the pros and cons of everything, it is bad to test animals because animals are very different from human beings and thus make poor test subjects and are unreliable, the cost and upkeep of it is expensive, and because there are alternatives to animal testi...
Writing this paper did not affect my original line of thinking in regards to the topic. I support animal rights in every way, and am extremely against any sort of testing. Observing the “necessities” of animal testing did not, in any way, alter my negative view of animal experimentation.
Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation Animal experimentation sends a different message to everyone. The two sides are made of those who think animal testing is beneficial for life and those who think it is unethical and wrong. Those who find these tests to be beneficial are consist of researchers, scientists, and other observers. People and groups who perceive these tests to be cruel and unethical, consist of animal rights activists and organizations that fight for animals rights, such as PETA and ASPCA. Though there are many differences between the two sides, there are also a few similarities.
Animal experimentation is not as good as it may seem to humans because we are not feeling it. It is cruel to animals to experience this. Many experts say is the only way to make new medicine, but you have to think about the animal. Many people don't even know what happens during experimentation on animals.
According to an article by PETA, “experiments on animals are cruel, expensive and generally inapplicable to humans” (PETA 1). This shows how not only many laboratories and companies that use animals in their experiments are wasting money and time, but also wasting countless lives of animals. As a human, one does not have to suffer through unconsenting pain because no one would ever consent to be treated the way lab rats would be treated. A study done by the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that” medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans” (Hackam, Redelmeier 1). This being said, it is not easy to comprehend why animal testing continues. However, as a community people think that “the benefits to humans does not justify the harm to animals” (Hajar 1). This goes to show how people who are pro-animal testing, marginalize the damage animal testing is doing to animals. While some may say that there needs to be alternative methods to animal testing, others may say that without animal testing it would be harder to test out new products for humans. Yet, with the information given by doctors Hackam and Redelmeier, it is clear to see that the use of animals is no longer
In modern society, animal experimentation has triggered a controversy; consequently, vast amount of protests have been initiated by the animal rights community. Although these organizations have successfully broadcast their concerns toward animal experimentation, its application continues to survive. Sally Driscoll and Laura Finley inform that there remain fifty million to one-hundred million animals that experience testing or experimentation throughout the world on a yearly basis. But despite opposition, animal experimentation, the use of experiments on animals in order to observe the effects an unknown substance has on living creatures, serves multiple purposes. Those particular purposes are: research of the living body, the testing of products, and the advancement of medicine.
Throughout history, animal testing has played an important role in leading to new discoveries and human benefit. However, what many people forget are the great numbers of animals that have suffered serious harm during the process of animal testing. Animal testing is the use of animals in biological, medical, and psychological studies. The development and enhancement of medical research has been based on the testing of animals. There are many questions being asked if animal research is good or not or if the benefit for us is way greater the abuse of animals. Doing tests on animals can help find ways to cure diseases, but testing on them is wrong. Although we want to find cures for diseases to help many people, testing on animals not only brutally hurts them but it also denies the animals the rights they have.
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). All in all, due to the harsh effects of animal testing, it should be treated as animal cruelty in today’s society.
Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health” (“Alternatives to Animals”). Companies claim that this sort of cruelty will benefit the human population by testing the “safety” of the products, as they have been for hundreds of years, and although this may have been helpful in the past, scientists have discovered otherwise. “While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals tested on continues to increase, the United States still ranks 49th in the world in life expectancy and second worst in infant mortality in the developed world” (“Animal Testing Is”). This evidence shows that while we still continue to support and spend money on animal testing, it is not working as well as we thought.
Every year thousands of mice, dogs, primates and other animals are victims of vivisection all over the world. These experiments are inhumane, ineffective, and absolutely pointless when there are alternate testing methods. These animals undergo painful suffering, and sometimes death as a result of scientific research into the effects of drugs, cosmetics, food additives, and other chemical products.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims of experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical improvements have helped many people be able to enjoy life, but some people still believe that animal research is mean and avoidable .... ... middle of paper ... ...