Animal Testing for Medicine
What do you feel is more important - the life of your child or the
life of a few rats? These comments are often brought up in animal
rights debates. On the one side the animal rights campaigners, on the
other side researchers intent on finding new medicines to improve the
quality of human life.
Animal activists claim that animal testing, or 'vivisection' is a
scientific disaster and that thousands have been injured or killed as
a result of it and time and time again researchers have been lead into
a blind alley.
Vivisection literally means, "cutting while still alive," but these
days it refers to any experiments conducted on animals. According to
the 1999 U.K. Vivisection statistics published by the government, 2.66
million animals were subjected to experiments 'likely to cause pain,
suffering, distress or lasting harm' in the U.K. alone.
Many different kinds of animals suffer this fate, including monkeys,
baboons (including wild-caught baboons), dogs, cats, pigs, rabbits,
mice, rats, gerbils, guinea pigs, sheep, horses, goats, budgerigars
and many others. These experiments include the animals being poisoned,
genetically mutated, infected with lethal pathogens, stressed,
deprived of parental care, irradiated, burnt, blinded, traumatised,
forced to inhale noxious substances and subjected to "interference
with the brain." The most common tests involve dripping materials into
rabbit's eyes or applying substances to the shaved backs of rabbits or
guinea pigs and studying the irritation or damage. Animals are also
force fed or dosed with substances to assess what affects the
substances have. These tests can cause great suffering to the animals.
But surely we need animal experiments to discover how safe new drugs
are before we give them to humans? Or do we? The combination of
Fenfluramine and Dexfenfluramine, touted as the answer to a dieter's
prayer a few years ago, was extensively tested on animals and found to
be very safe. Unfortunately it caused heart valve abnormalities in
humans. Or how about the arthritis drug Opren? Tests on monkeys found
no problems but it killed 61 people before it was withdrawn.
She sits alone in a threadbare, chilly, metal cage. Her eyes dart around wondering when the next torture will commence. If the testing fails to kill her, the stress definitely will. Entering is the doctor who plans to perform an eye irritancy test. The rabbit’s eyes will be held open with clips for at least three days if she survives that long (“Frequently Asked Questions”). Similarly, if these procedures would be performed on a human, they would be considered illegal. Yet, scientists continue to make harmless animals suffer incessantly. Annually, countless animals are abused in American test labs; however, alternative practices should be implemented in order to participate in worldwide trade, save innocent lives, and provide more accurate data.
SUMMARIZE: The article grants information on new models in cosmetics to take the place of animal experimentation. It goes on to talk about how the European Union has now banned using animal-based test for cosmetic reasoning. Pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies have been using computer-like tools to assess the toxicity it has for years. The author incorporates information on cosmetics and the outlook on further research. ‘According to experts, combination of laboratory-based with virtual work will be the future of testing and is progressing faster than they expected.” (87 words)
The ethics behind using animals for experiments and tests has been questioned and debated for years. Many people believe that animal experimentations can be crucial towards medical breakthroughs such as the cure for cancer, HIV/AIDS or asthma. Meanwhile others argue that animals that are used to test cosmetics such as make-up and perfumes are inhuman because is not going to help improve the human race. Animals suffer through multiple types of torture such as being forced to ingest poisonous chemicals, blinded, burned, stapled, and infected with disease viruses. Even though animal experimentation may be considered inhumane to many, animal experimentation is crucial to advancements in medical research and can lead to a better quality of life; on the other hand, animal experimentation should not be used to develop cosmetics because such experimentation is cruel and unnecessary.
Animal testing has been used for developing and researching cures for medical conditions. For example, the polio vaccine, chemotherapy for cancer, insulin treatment for diabetes, organ transplants and blood transfusions are just some of the important advances that have come from research on animals (“Animal Testing”). Consuming animals for research benefits in developing various treatments and also benefits in discovery better methods for cures. According to the article “Animal Testing”, it says that the underlying rationale for the use of animal testing is that living organisms provide interactive, dynamic systems that scientists can observe and manipulate in order to understand normal and pathological functioning as well as the effectiveness of medical interventions. It relies on the physiological and anatomical similarities between humans and other animals (MacClellan, Joel). Meaning that animals have the same body components and features as humans and is the best thing to research on to better understand the human development. Even though several argue that animal testing is harming the animals, one has to think back to all the benefits that has come from it. There may be a little remorse for endangering animal lives, but realizing how far medicine has come makes it worth the while.
Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC. Over 25 million animals are tested in labs every year. They are used for medical and scientific research. The animals used in research often undergo cruel experimentations and suffer through the pain. During medical testing, less than 2% of human illnesses are seen in animals, therefor medical testing on animals is cruel and pointless. Medical testing on animals should be illegal because products that pass animal tests end up harming or killing humans about 61% of the time.
Argument Essay Where Would We Be Without Animal Testing? Is the use of animals in research justified? Should animal experimentation be permitted? Should these animals be liberated? A logical person would say the benefits justify the research.
Evidence of animal testing can be found in greek writing as early as 500 B.C. Clearly showing that animal testing has been around for a long time, but only recently has it become a topic of real concern. Used for the purpose of developing medical treatments that could one day benefit humankind, determine the toxicity of medications (usually in at least two animal species), and to check the safety of products that are destined for human use. http://animal-testing.procon.org/ Animal testing has sprouted debate among the human population. Proponents of animal testing argue that animal testing is necessary to achieve medical breakthroughs, without animal testing who would they use for experiments, and that animal testing is important for learning. Arguments for those against animal testing include the fact that animals are biologically different than humans, they are caged in inhumane living conditions, must undergo painful experiments, and it is extremely costly.
Animals have long sense been a part of human life. The dog for example is thought to have been the first animal to be domesticated by humans, sometime around 13,000–10,000 B.C., from wolves. It is not known for sure how humans gained the trust of the Canines but in any event they did, and soon found dogs to be reliable companions. Animals have aided us any many ways, from offering protection and companionship. They should be respected and loved for loyalty; however it has been a very common practice to test household items, cosmetics and pharmaceutical products on animals for a very long time. Countless of innocent creatures are killed, or live a maimed life thanks to the endeavors of human scientist who use them to further there research. Millions of animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. In order to preserve the life of valuable animal testing should be restricted, there are alternate methods that scientist can use to discover their answers.
Household objects such as shampoo bottles will often times say the product was not tested on animals. The ethics surrounding animal testing, the use of animals for testing products before they are released to the public for human use, has been debated for years. The main use of animals for testing is to confirm the product being tested is safe for humans, which has to be proven before a product can be released. Cosmetic and household product companies that have moved away from animal testing are consequently “using approved non-animal tests and combinations of existing ingredients that have already been established as safe for human use” (Thew 191). These tests are successful for common products, but are much more difficult to be put into practice
issues. Most would also agree that the life of a child is a precious thing that
Each year, several million rabbits, mice, and rats, as well as other laboratory animals, are slated to die over the next decade in order to advance the knowledge of science (Coghlan, 2002). Many people have come to view this use of animals as unethical, while others argue that animal testing is the only truly adequate way to test the safety of new products and medicines. In addition to taking the philosophical high ground, examination of why researchers should consider alternatives to animal testing in laboratories show that the arguments against this practice are persuasive and backed up with empirical research. These arguments state that (1) animal testing is often simply an entrenched procedure, which is continued due to tradition and law,
Millions of chemicals have been discontinued in everyday uses, such as in plant poisons, through animal testing, they have been donned to be unsafe for people and environment. Without animal testing, the general public would still be using these hazardous chemicals. Many humanitarians may be opposed to testing chemicals on animals, but if scientists didn’t test on animals, individuals would have to test the deadly chemicals or live in a world where people don’t know if the chemicals they are using are poisonous and lethal to the human society. Animal testing may be wrong in some instances, but it does not compare to the benefits that it brings to this society in many different areas. A person should not have to imagine how this world would be like if scientists did not use animals to try and find cures for diseases or test certain chemicals. Although scientists test animals mainly for find cures for humans, it benefits other animals with cures for similar and non-similar diseases. Testing on animals is mandatory in order to save countless amounts of lives around the world in society today.
Diana: Good afternoon Melanie. Thank you for coming to my house. I wanted to meet with you because I know you are a very well-known scientist and you work on animal testing. I am not very sure this is something moral to work on and I have always wanted to listen the point of view of a specialized scientist. I personally believe animal testing should not be allowed.
Decades have passed by with the heated debate of whether animals should be used in research to assess the safety of products and medicines in health care. People feel differently about animals. Some love being in the company of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, etc. Others like researchers and scientists like to look at them as a means for conducting experimental research. No matter how different people look at animals, the bottom line remains that animals are used by researchers and cosmetics companies. The use of animals in research is advantageous to mankind. But the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals is not worth the benefits when alternative methods for such research could demonstrate equal results. Consequently, animals should not be in research
If you had an illness, such as cancer, would you be okay with animal testing for medical benefit to help save your live? Animal testing is a controversial topic, however, in the past it has benefit human life, government regulations have been set, and could continue to aid in human and animal life. Animal testing for medical purposes has many advantages and should continue to extend a people’s and animal’s lives.