Although not as strictly addressed, there is still a schism when it comes to the matters of experimentation involving animals. Those in opposition of it see it as being against the will of the animal, because animals have no say in the matter. However, through animal experimentation there has been vast medical advances in hospitals and veterinarians , research has led to cures for various diseases that would normally take many more years to cure, and the use of animals is highly ethical considering what could be the alternative, although there is progress being made to change these measures. This is how animal experimentation is of use to society for humans and animals.
Animal testing has gone back as far as three hundred B.C.E with the Greek physician and philosopher, Aristotle (*). Then there was Galen, a Greek physician, who studied animals in Rome and learned more about medicine, made advancements in understanding anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. To modern society, Galen is referred to as being the father of vivisection. In the twelfth century in Spain, Ibn Zuhr, an Arab physician who made use of animal experimentation that led to testing the effectiveness of surgical procedures, first on animals, and then applying the information to human patients. Though most of his testings were on goats, much of his research went into postmortem autopsies and dissections. (Hajar) (Naik)
In modern times, the experimentation on animals has led to just as many advances in medical science as there are in veterinary science and practice. Ibn Zuhr paved the way for basic surgical procedures that advanced over time as the anatomy of humans and animals were not seen as being one and the same. Blood transfusions came about through ...
... middle of paper ...
.... 2014. Academic OneFile. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
Naik, Abhijit. “History of Animal Testing”. Buzzle. 8 March 2011. 10 March 2014. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-animal-testing.html
Travis, John. "Pig cells used for Parkinson's disease." Science News. 7 Oct. 1995: 230. Academic OneFile. Web. 26 Feb. 2014
U.S. Researchers Defend Animal Testing・. Discovery. Feb 21, 2011. 28 February 2014. http://news.discovery.com/animals/animal-research-medical-defended-110221.htm
Veterinary Benefits・. Speakingofresearch. 2014. 28 February 2014. http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/veterinary-benefits/
Wolff, Jonathan. "Pro and Con Positions Oversimplify Animal Experimentation Issues."Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Rpt. from "Killing Softly." Guardian. 28 Mar. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Mar. 2014.
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)
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
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 broadcasted 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
Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...
Animal experiments used in biological research have helped make many advancements in human medicine. Through these experiments when has achieved, a decrease in infant mortality, longer lifespan, and an increase in the quality of life (American Medical Associaton 3). Through indirect of direct experimentation, almost all medical advances can be traced back to research through animals. The control and dismissal of diseases like: small pox, poliomyelitis, and measles has been achieved with animals. Blood transfusions, burn therapy, open brain and hearts surgery where all fulfilled the same way (American Medical Association 54). "Biomedical advances depend on research with animals, and not using them would deprive humans and criminals of the benefits of research" (American Media Association74). Through animal research we could find solutions to AIDS, cancer, heart diseases, aging, and congenital defects. Like Lord Adrian said, “The use of living animals in scientific research can be considered justified if it is likely to produce appreciable benefit to society, if there is no way to conduct the research in quest...
Overall, as in the past, the argument towards animal experimentation remains unresolved. Animal right protesters continue to fight for the rights of animals, while, scientists continue to justify their actions for the purpose of saving lives.
Historically, the use of animals for experimental purposes dates back to early Greek physician-scientists. Aristotle and Galen both conducted experiments on animals in an effort to contribute to our understanding of science and medicine.1 Claude Bernard later established animal experimentation as part of the scientific method. Known as the father of physiology, Bernard stated that “experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree.”1 Bernard’s work strongly influenced the use of animals in biomedical research, which has become a common, and often required, practice today. The American Medical Association (AMA)...
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. Examples of these similarities include the 3R’s concept and other laws that are fair to both sides. An example of a difference, is the fact that some people think testing leads to medical breakthroughs, while some people think otherwise.
Animal testing has been in practice since the early 300’s BCE, often used by ancient philosophers to advance the very little knowledge at the time in the field of biomedicine. Some of these philosophers who began animal testing are well known, such as Aristotle and Erasistratus. Another scientist named Ibn Zuhr came up with the idea of using animals to test surgical procedures on animals before beginning them on human patients (Hajar). Rachel Hajar, M.D., states that animal testing began to undergo criticism from animal welfare and protection groups because of the inhumane procedures inflicted on the animals. These groups had laws passed in many countries that gave the animals more protection when being researched upon. Scientists who support animal testing insist that it is necessary to expand our knowledge in the science and medicine world. Claude Bernard, a physiologist, says “Experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man. The effects of these substances are the same on man as on animals, save for differences in degree” (“Animal Testing and Medicine”). Because of the large amount of debate ...
The history of animal testing is a long and controversial one. Early Greek physician-scientists Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) and Erasistratus (304 – 258 BC), to name a couple, performed experiments on living animals. Galen (129 – 199 / 217 AD), also a Greek physician, practiced in Rome and was very important in the history of medicine. He conducted animal experiments to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. In twelfth century Moorish Spain, an Arab physician by the name of Ibn Zuhr was the first to use animal testing as an experimental method for testing surgical procedures before using them on human patients. William Harvey was an English physician during the 17th Century. He experimented with many animal species aiming to demonstrate blood circulation. In 1859, Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory reinforced th...
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.
Around 6th through the 2nd century many physicians would perform experiments on animals, just to satisfy their curiosity. They would study their anatomy to understand the differences between animals and humans. Galen of Pergamum (129-216 CE) was one of the first to ever dissected and vivisected animals for his testing. Vivisection is when resesrcher operate on living animals to study the animals body when it is a life. He would dissect sheeps, pigs, goats, and monkeys to better his surgical skills, and for his own research purposes. He discovered that arteries carry blood not air as many physicians believed over 400 years, and he also discovered the difference between arteries and veins. He learned more about nervous system by cutting animals
Animals have held 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 to gain 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 our scientific improvement. Experimentation on animals is cruel, unfair, and does not have enough beneficial results to consider it essential.
The deployment of animals for medical research has brought heated debates from both the proponents and opponents each holding to their views in a tight manner. Those who are in support of animal research argue that it has been constituting a vital element in the advancement of medical sciences throughout the world providing insights to various diseases, which have helped in the discovery and development of various medicines that have brought an improvement in the qualify of living of people. Such discoveries have gone so deep that but for them many would have died a premature death because no cure would have been found for the diseases that they were otherwise suffering. On the other hand, animal lovers and animal right extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also Cruel. Human kind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislations to put an end to using animals by the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the view of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....
A large issue is animal testing. “More than 25 million vertebrate animals are used in testing in the United States each year. When invertebrate animals are thrown into the mix, the estimated number rises to as high as 100 million.”(dosomething) The laboratory testing of animals is important to biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals to extend their understanding of the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases for humans and other animals. However, the morality, the necessity, or the validity of the studies are questionable. Thousands of animals are helplessly killed every year that animal testing is being conducted. “Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research” (about my planet). This can cause harm to the animals and may in turn be fatal. It is not fair nor is it humane to conduct experiments on animals to make sure a product or procedure is safe for us. There are no reasons to regard an animal’s life as if it is insignificant in contrast to a human life. During the testing, animals may be force fed or put in restraints in order for the scientists to get the product into their systems. Ani...