1. INTRODUCTION Currently, Animals experimentation is becoming a controversial topic. As millions of creatures have been tested to benefit human life. A simple definition of this procedure is observing scientific laboratory examinations on live animals. There are many campaigns around the world which reject these tests and request the alternatives. They believe that this kind of experimentation is harmful for people as much as it is cruel to animals while others argue these experiments are substantial for humans live as they are used in important medical research. In this project I will present different areas of this hotly debated issue with an important clarification of the history of animals testing and the common use of it with outlining both negative and positive aspects of them. Then, I will offer possible alternatives to these experiments . 2. HISTORY OF ANIMAL TESTING Animal experiments history can be referred to ancient Greeks and Romans writings. The first experiments on living animals were performed by a Greek scientist called Erasistratus in 18th century. During the18th and 19thcenturies these tests transferred from being relatively uncommon to a scientific mainstream. In Russia, the development of embryos was discovered by the Zoologist Christian Pander In 1817, which led to same discovery in human embryos. Additionally, in 1912, dogs were used to study rejoining severed nerves by a French surgeon called Alexis Carrel. This was the first step in organ transplantation. In 1921, Frederick Banting caused the revolution of diabetes medicines by improving the pancreatic ducts of dogs, and discovered that the isolation of pancreatic secretion can keep dogs with diabetes alive. He followed ... ... middle of paper ... .... London and New York: Zed books ltd. Guerrini, A. 2003. Experimenting with Humans and Animals: from Galen to Animals Rights. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Orlans, F. 1993. In the name of Science: Issue in responsible Animal Experimentation. Oxford: Oxford University press. Smyth, D. 1978. Alternatives to Animal Experiments. London: Scolar press in association with the Research Defence Society. Society of Toxicology Organisation. 2008. Animal in Research: The Importance of Animals in the Science of Toxicology[online]. Virginia. Available from: http//: toxicology. org/ ai/ air/ ATR_Final.pdf. [Accessed 20 June 2010]. Feldman, E.2010. Alfred Taubman Medical Research Institute: stem cells offer hope toconquer ALS[online]. Michigan. Available from:. http://www.med.umich.edu/taubmaninstitute/Scholars/feldman.htm. [ Accessed 16 June 2010]
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
Frederick Banting hypothesised that he could obtain the insulin hormone from dogs and then administer the insulin to patients with dia...
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
The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial issue over the past thirty years. Animal testing is a morally debated practice. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. This paper will present both sides of this issue as well as my own opinion.
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...
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
“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>.
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 testing is performed in a wide arena of areas such as colleges and universities, laboratories, and within pharmaceutical companies. The main uses for the need of animal experimentation are genetic development, biomedical and biochemical research, toxicology, cosmetic testing and more. The use of animals for scientific research has constantly been a topic of ethical debate. Some major ...
Animals are used as a part of experimentations in order to accomplish new openings. A few individuals think that it is satisfactory, while others contend that it is not moral to sacrifice animals for science. Estimated, that fifty to one hundred million of animals are used for tests in the world. Despite the significance of experiments, the quantity of animals and purpose of research are not under any control. Animals testing should be banned under a few circumstances; we can enhance the situation by using alternative ways such as replacement, reduction, and refinement according to International Society for Applied Ethology.
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.
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.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1976. Call Number: HV4711.A56. American Medical Association. The “Animal Experimentation Benefits Human Health”. Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints?
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.
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.