Animal Experimentation
Imagine if your pet was getting experimented on for a product you might buy in the future. Would anyone really want that product, your pet was in pain because of it? Animals are getting experimented on for products to get released to the public. Some companies are using vitro researching to test their products but not enough companies are using vitro as their form of testing products. Synthetic skin could reduce the amount of animals getting tested on everyday for companies to release new products to the public. Animals are getting experimented on everyday.
Animals are getting experimented on for products. Animals are getting affected everyday by this problem. They are getting experimented on to see if a product is safe for human beings to use. Medical schools in the United States have stopped using animals for their needs in training.(Driscoll and Finley) In 1983, 150 baboons had to be removed from the University of Pennsylvania Head Injury Clinic for brain damage. (Driscoll and Finley) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Animal Liberation Front removed the baboons from the clinic. (Driscoll and Finley) The results of the experiments are not even that accurate. Nutrition experiments on animals are very inaccurate. PCRM published the article “An Examination of Animal Experiments” that stated “Nutrition is another area where animal experiments have raised repeated problems. While it is easy to feed vitamins, fat, or fiber to animals and to check whether their disease rates rise or fall, the relevance to humans is limited at best, due to major physiological differences between species.” People and organizations, such as PETA and the Humane Society of the United States(HSUS), have been...
... middle of paper ...
...p://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/>.
Driscoll, Sally and Laura Finley. “Animal Experimentation: An Overview.”Points Of View: Animal Experimentation (2013): 1. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 6 Feb. 2014
“An Examination of Animal Experiments.” Physician Committee for Responsible Medicine. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. .
League, Animal Defense. “Policy Statement on Animal Research.” Civil Rights in America. Woodbridge, CT: Primary Source Media, 1999. American Journey.Student Resources in Context. Web. 6 Feb. 2014.
“Respect for life.” Pamphlet by: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2000. Student Resources in Context. Web. 9 Feb. 2014
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
Over 100 Million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in testing labs every year. Animals are used to test the safety of products, advance scientific research, and develop models to study disease and to develop new medical treatments, all for the sake of mankind. Animals should not be used for scientific research because animal testing is inhumane, other testing methods now exist, and animals are very different from human beings. While animal testing has led to many life-saving cures, animal testing is cruel and inhumane because it involves inflicting pain and harm on the test subject to study its effects and remedies. Testing involves physically restraining, force-feeding, and depriving animals of food and water.
“Animals and Research Part 4: Ethics of using animals in research.” Editorial. Seattle Post-Intelligencer 20 Apr. 2000 <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/anml4.shtml>.
Asking just about any animal rights activists on the thoughts of animal testing, it is virtually unquestionable that the majority of them would come across the thought of some of the laws in regards to animals and how animals are “protected” by these laws. Trained scientists and researchers take on the key role of testing on animals in laboratories and facilities throughout the world. Simply in the United States alone, there are very few laws protecting animals from the unnecessary amounts of suffering the researchers force upon them with many broad exceptions. Additionally, in reference to the scientists who perform these tests, the author lists and goes into detail explaining certain associations that infrequently examine and inspect animal testing facilities to ensure that the guidelines and standards are being followed. The author then goes on to state the problems among these organizations that were originally created by the government to assess
Evans, Kim Masters. "Research Animals." Animal Rights. 2009 ed. N.p.: n.p., 2014. N. pag. Student Resources In Context. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
...s Human and Animal Lives." Americans for Medical Progress. (20 March 1999). "Animal Research Holds the Key to Saving Human Lives." Americans for Medical Progress. (20 March 1999). Ball, Matt and Anne Green, and Jack Norris. "Veganism as the Path to Animal Liberation." The Animal's Agenda Sep/Oct 1998: 44-45. Botting, Jack H. and Adrian R. Morrison. "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine." Scientific American. 187 February 1997: 83-85. D. E. "Skin Stand-Ins." Scientific American. September 1990: 168. James-Enger, Kelly. "Beyond Animal Testing." Vegetarian Times. October 1998: 254. "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." (20 March 1999). "21 Things You May Not Know About the Animal Rights Movement." Americans for Medical Progress. (20 March 1999). U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal Welfare Report Fiscal Year 1997.
Cohn, Meredith. "Alternatives to animal testing gaining ground." The Baltimore Sun [Baltimore] 26 Aug. 2010: 1-2. Print.
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.
Animal testing, also known as Animal Experimentation, is using non-human primates to test human products on. The discipline of science impacted is biology. Majority of Animal Testing is done in Universities, medical schools, and pharmaceutical companies. The controversy of Animal Testing is deciding whether to continue or ban it. Both would affect the world, or society as whole, since animal testing does decide what is the right doses, vaccinations/medicines, what will affect the human body and what will not.
Sun, Shany. "The Truth Behind Animal Testing." Young Scientists Journal 5.12 (2012): 83-85. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
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.
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
Simple household items such as lotions, shampoos and cosmetics aren’t very expensive and are within reach for the public, yet the public is not knowledgeable of the fact that the products that they use everyday are put through a series of tests which involve the use of harmless animals. Several large commercial companies do not make products for animals; they decide that using these harmless creatures for the testing of their products, could be cause to be harmful to animals still go forward with these types of procedures on an everyday basis. Although these animals are unable to defend themselves or signs of any form of consent for the near death procedures, these companies find this as a cheap solution for testing their products before placing them on the market. There are many other alternatives to testing animals such as embryonic stem cell research. Animal experimentation is wrong and it can be avoided but companies which are greedy for money chose not to.
In this essay, I shall support Mary Anne Warren’s view that animals do have rights but not the same as humans; and partially endorse the views of both Tom Regan and Carl Cohen when it comes to the argument of Animal Rights. Regan believes that it is immoral to use animals in science for any purpose. He wishes for the total abolition of animal agriculture, commercial use, and the use animals in scientific research. I am opposed to Regan’s desire for abolition. There are benefits from the testing of animals. However there definitely should be limits and more laws to enforce the protection of animals.
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.