Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
argumentative essay on animal experimentation
ethical issue of animal experiments
argumentative essay on animal experimentation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: argumentative essay on animal experimentation
Animal Experimentation at New York University
Using animals for medical experimentation and education is a controversial subject that often leads to a heated debate. The issues are complex, but the suffering and waste involved in animal experimentation are painfully obvious. Vivisection, the act of cutting into a live animal, has led the nation down countless scientific dead ends, while detracting funds and attention from more applicable scientific research. The practice of animal experimentation at NYU continues, not because it has been proven to be an accurate and reliable means of research (which it has not) but rather, because of tradition and promotion from those with strong vested interests (i.e. Lynne Kiorpes). These values have caused a number of recent protests and investigations at an institution named New York University.
On October 10, 2000, a protest in Washington Square Park rejuvenated an issue that NYU has been dealing with since late 1997, a debate that the university wrongfully uses Macaque monkeys for scientific research. An excerpt from the University Press read: “Kelly Osborne and Shawnee Alexandri rappelled down the west side of the main building, displaying a huge banner that read, “NYU’s Labs are Making a Killing””(Amon 1). The students claim that the research,
headed by Lynne Kiorpes, tortures baby monkeys and yields no breakthroughs that will save or even improve human lives (Animal Testing Labs Come Under Fire Again 1). Dr. Marjorie Cramer described Lynne Kiorpes’ work as “outdated, using antiquated techniques” (Gazzola 1). Her research was quoted by an editor of the Washington Square News as “insignificant and destructive” (1).
Lynne Kiorpes, head of the research laboratory at New York Unive...
... middle of paper ...
...mal lab funded by taxpayers. Equally disturbing are NYU’s efforts to punish students and faculty members that have come forward with information on the abuses in the university’s animal laboratories (Finsen 42).
Scientific facts can be taught to medical students by use of demonstrative techniques. New York University’s medical school, which allows students to “practice” on live, healthy animals may be teaching future physicians to be devoid of compassion. Doctors are considered caring individuals, but vivisection during the training process can desensitize them to the pain they cause and teach them to put ethics aside. There is no reason for NYU to use monkeys for the purpose of experimentation and demonstration. Acceptable alternatives are available and should be implemented, saving lives and millions in federal funding, paving the way for a humanitarian society.
Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals
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...
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
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.
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.
Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness, and long to roam free and use their minds. Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them.” (“Animal Testing 101”)
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.
Throughout centuries medical research has been conducted on animals. “Animals were used in early studies to discover how blood circulates through the body, the effect of anesthesia, and the relationship between bacteria and disease” (AMA 59). Experiments such as these seem to be outdated and actually are by today’s means, scientists now study commonly for three general purposes: (1) biomedical and behavioral research, (2) education, (3) drug and product testing (AMA 60). These three types of experiments allow scientists to gain vast amounts of knowledge about human b...
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.
Over 100 million animals are used in experiments; 95% of these animals end up dying. Animals are killed and mutilated for the sake of science. Some experiments can involve “blinding, severing of limbs, damaging brain, and ingesting various drugs.” (Coster,
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....
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 ...
Such medical experimentations on monkeys created severe health problems and infected wounds, bones sticking, chewed-off fingers and toes as well as even resulted to death. For instance, at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, “monkeys were forced and even given electric shocks to run on a treadmill” (Owen 45). Such harsh and unethical human actions and abuse of monkeys for humans’ life betterment are unjustifiable as Regan states "fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us--to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money” (Lehman Hugh). Scientists do monkeys’ experiments in lab because of their large supply available and other economic advantages such as low cost. The economic advantages of monkeys enabled scientists to keep them for long period in the lab and use them many times for drug tests. Unavailability of a global comprehensive principle to deal with animal experiments such as medical research on monkeys allowed scientists to put the life of them at risk and the monkeys’ generation at destruction. Also such medical experiments on monkeys increased potential risk of infecting other monkeys and animals the humans’ deceases. Additionally, Many of the researches have done on monkeys do not apply to humans, because they have had adverse effects on humans. The side-effect on humans implies that while humans and