Most of the medications that we in market today have been tested and proven effective for animals before prescribing them to human beings. However, would it feel good to know that every year, hundreds of thousands of animals are captured from the wild and die just because of these said experiments? For many years now, scientists have been using animals for their laboratory experiments to produce new medicines. Although scientists have been using this process for many decades in the field of medicine, it is still a controversial issue for those who are pro animal experimentation and against animal experimentation. Both sides have been arguing about the necessity of these procedures of the medical field. Carl Cohen, a vocal animal experimentation supporter states, “Experiments on animals are necessary in order to safeguard and improve human health and well-being” (Gaughen 1). On the other hand, here are some reasons why those who are against animal experimentation say that it should be banned: 1) scientists use endangered species; 2) non-human primates and other animals are poor subjects for experimentation; and 3) there are other alternatives to testing on animals for the production of new medicines. Most of those who are pro animal experimentation see only one side of the argument and do not consider these facts. Facts about animal experimentation show that it should be banned and should not be in the field of medicine anymore.
The first reason why animal experimentation should be put to a good stop is the scientists’ usage of endangered animals. The U.S. Department of agriculture lately estimated that about 1.6 million animals are used in medical and pharmaceutical research (Gaughen 4). Most of the animals that are involved in ...
... middle of paper ...
...is Necessary.” Contemporary Issues Companion: Animal Rights. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.ccbcmd.edu:80>
Hurley, Jennifer, “Animal Experimentation in Never Justified.” Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Animal Rights. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.ccbcmd.edu:80>
Miller, Debra. “Using Animal For Medical Testing May Be Wrong for Scientific Rather than Ethical Reasons. “Current Controversies: Rights of Animals. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.ccbcmd.edu:80>
Mur, Cindy. “Nonhuman Primates Should Not BE Used in Experiments.” At Issue: Animal Experimentation. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center http://0-find.galegroup.com.library.ccbcmd.edu:80>
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 experimentation has always been a highly debated topic. Many have argued for the use of animal experimentation claiming that animal experimentation is the only possible way to find medical treatments to preserve human life. However, animal rights activists have argued that animal experimentation is futile and that it is unethical to use the life of an animal for experimentation without the animal’s consent. Although both sides of the debated issue present reasonable opinions, the use of animals for experimentation is the most effective form scientists have in order to find medical breakthroughs. In Jane Goodall’s essay “A Question of Ethics,” she argues that animals should not be experimented on because there are more advanced alternatives than using animal lives. In Goodall’s defence, we should not support activities
Animal testing is a largely debated and controversial issue. It was first introduced in the United States in the 1920s (Goldberg 85). Since then, there have been many advances in the field of medicine and science. These advances are due largely to the fact that animals are used in experiments and research. Animal testing has given doctors some of their most successful accomplishments. Also, they help researchers discover how to improve long known theories about the human mind and body. Over 40 Nobel Prizes have been given to researchers “whose achievements depended, at least in part, on using laboratory animals” (Trull 64). These animal experiments have helped humans live a better life. Animal testing benefits doctors...
In the twenty first century, we have so many other alternatives besides continuing to burn, shock, poison, starve, and kill over 100 million animals to test new household products and medicines when it has been proved that animal testing is an ineffective way to cure illnesses and improve human life. Animals do not suffer the same illnesses as humans do and injecting them into animals and studying the effects delays our time to further understand the sickness on an actual human. Seeing that an animals’ genetic makeup is much different from a humans then certain medicines that work on animals more often than not are not effective on humans. Therefore, results are often very misleading. “Animals are fed harmful substances, infected with lethal viruses, subjected to brain damage, heart attacks, strokes, and cancers”(“What’s Wrong With…”). Through a humane perspective, the murder of millions of animals is a disturbing thought to hold. As a country, we continue to remain oblivious to what continues to go on behind laboratory doors for cosmetic, medical, and industrial purposes.
According to the Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force-feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation and the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies. Additionally, in 2010 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 97, 123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being refused any anesthesia for relief. (“Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?”) No animals deserve to be treated with this kind of cruelty in a sad attempt to benefit human health. Prior to testing, it is a known fact that the animals may never survive or live past the testing. This is because the drugs they use on the animals may be very lethal, some even causing instant death upon exposure. Consequently, animal testing should not continue because the lives of many innocent animals are unnecessarily taken away due to the
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
The recent debate on whether or not animal experimentation should be allowed has sparked uproar. When scientists think they have what they claim to be a “wonder drug,” they need a way to test the safety of the drug before it is safe for human use. At this point scientists turn to animals, because of their close resemblance to humans. With drug companies reducing experimentations and using alternatives, some people may wonder why animals undergo experimentation in the first place. While there are advantages to animal experimentation, it does not ensure success in human clinical trials, there is no law protecting any animal from cruel experimentation, and some animals should not have to live in cruel facilities.
The roots of animal experimentation began in the early 1600s when the world expressed in interests on the functions of animals and their uses in human life. However, it wasn’t until the incident regarding the drug thalidomide in 1960 did the government make it a requirement for drugs be tested on animals. During the incident, millions of women took the medication believing that it would be a source of relieve from morning sickness, not knowing however that it would cause irrevocable effects on their unborn children (Watson 4). Although the ruling seemed to provide a sigh of relief to some, the very idea of placing animals in strange uncomfortable environments and experiencing pain and euthanasia angered many. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, commonly known as AAVS, It is wrong to treat animals as objects for the purpose of scientific research, and to cause them pain and suffering (“Animal Research Is Unethical and Scientifically Unnecessary”). Although the arguments against animal experimentation seem credible, animal testing on medicines and products are necessary in order to insure the safety of human beings.
For centuries, the use of animal experimentation in the biomedical field has been questioned ethically. Do the benefits of animals used in research outweigh the pain that the animals endure? Animal rights activists will argue that there are new alternatives that are more accurate than animal testing. Nonetheless, scientists will continue to use animals for the advancement in the medical field because there have been various cases where animals have paved the way, medically, for humans to this day. Additionally, testing on animals instead of humans puts humans out of harms way. The first Animal Cruelty Act was created in 1835 to regulate the use of animals for scientific purposes. According to Franco (2013), the “Enactment of the 1986 Animals
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims to 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 i...
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....
Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.
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 ...
Animals are used in research to develop new medicines and for scientists to test the safety of the medicines. This animal testing is called vivisection. Research is being carried out at universities, medical schools and even in primary and elementary schools as well as in commercial facilities which provide animal experiments to industry. (UK Parliament) In addition, animals are also used in cosmetic testing, toxicology tests, “defense research” and “xenotransplantation”. All around the world, a huge amount of animals are sentenced to life in a laboratory cage and they are obliged to feel loneliness and pain. In addition scientists causing pain, most drugs that pas successfully in animals fail in humans. It is qualified as a bad science. Above all, animals have rights not to be harmed even though the Animal Welfare Act does not provide them even with minimal protection. The law does not find it necessary to use current alternatives to animals, even if they are obtainable. Animal testing should be banned due to animal rights, ethical issues, alternative ways and the unreliability of test results in humans.