Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
animal testing for science and the medical field
animal experimentation in medical research
animal welfare act regulatation about keeping animals in captivity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: animal testing for science and the medical field
“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval”, this was written by Peter Singer in his book Animal Liberation. Animals are all over, whether it is at home as companions, at the circus as entertainment, or in our closets as clothing. Citizens of the United States are aware that the medicines we are to take have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but many of us have been ignorant to how exactly the majority of these medicines are approved and who are the testing dummies that are used to come up with these medication. Conducting medical research with animals has caused break out of legal, scientific, and ethical dilemmas concerning that topic. In this paper I will try to give an unbiased understanding of the research experiments animals have to undergo and the ethical issue that arise supported by Peter Singer. It has been recorded that physician-scientist such as Aristotle and Erasistratus has performed experiments on living animals. In 1937, a pharmaceutical company here in the United States, came up with a drug called Elixir Sulfanilamide. This drug consisted of a solvent that was highly poisonous which lead to the death of hundreds of people. It wasn’t until then that the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act required testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed to humans. In 1959, W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch introduced the three R’s for the use of humane treatment of animals. The first R is for the replacement of animals with non-living models, the second R is for the reduction in the use of animals, and the third R is for the refinement of animal use practices. The Animal Welfare Act signed in 1966, is the only federal law that regulates the treatment of a... ... middle of paper ... ...ood stream. Still the question on pain comes up, do animals really feel pain or is it just an assumption. Pain is known to be as a “mental event” that only we feel and the only way people know that we are feeling pain is because we tell them. Animals on the other hand have their own way of communicating that they would like to be helped; behavior signs of pain include writhing, facial frowns, moaning, appearance of fear, and yelping. Lord Brain, the neurologist, once said “I at least cannot doubt that the interests and activities of animals are correlated with awareness and feeling in the same way as my own, and which may be just as vivid.” This explains that animals and humans do have a correlation among each other when it comes to their surroundings and activities. Therefore animals would be aware when they are in a tense environment and nonetheless feel pain.
Testing animals is used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medicinal drugs, check the safety of products intended for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and healthcare roles. The earliest recordings of animal studies date back to Aristotle, who discovered the anatomical differences among animals by analyzing them (Introduction). Advocates of animal testing say that it has enabled the growth of numerous medical advancements, tests to see if new products are save for mankind, acquisition of new scientific knowledge, and because it is accurate (B). Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to try out on animals, many animals die from the animal testing, it’s unethical, animals don’t have a say in it, the accuracy is in question because they are testing animals and not humans, and the toll of animal testing is high (B). Through the pros and cons of everything, it is bad to test animals because animals are very different from human beings and thus make poor test subjects and are unreliable, the cost and upkeep of it is expensive, and because there are alternatives to animal testi...
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...
"Animal Testing Is Cruel and Does Not Benefit Medical Research." You Can Save the Animals: 251 Ways to Stop Thoughtless Cruelty. Rocklin, CA: Prima Publishing, 1999. Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 7 July
Law and Animal Experimentation: A Critical Primer,” the author, Stephen Latham, begins his writing with expressing his views and thoughts on the reform needed to benefit animals while being experimented on. Latham describes the current system as being majorly flawed and having many gaps that could be completely modified to improve the current system in reference to the United States animal testing laws, standards, and regulations. Latham argues that “Even proponents of medical research on animals can see obvious ways in which the regulatory structure could be changed to benefit animals” (S35). Furthermore, the author achieves the purpose of stating his views while justifying himself in the attempt of achieving rational reform extremely well. Latham accomplished his purpose thoroughly because he provides detailed evidence and description of that evidence while explaining and supporting his thoughts of reform relating to the subject of animal
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
Pierce, Jessica. "Emotional Pain in Animals: An Invisible World of Hurt." Emotional Pain in Animals: An Invisible World of Hurt. Sussex Publisher, 24 Apr. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.
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...
For decades, using animals for laboratory testing has been a controversial issue. Typically, animal testing is used to test cosmetics and medicines that may be used on humans. Scientists tend to use animals for testing when there’s a chance that the chemicals used in the substances could cause harm to the person using them. It is estimated that more than 115 million animals world-wide are used in lab experiments every year. Since only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning animal use for research, the exact number is unknown. The question is whether the use of experimenting with animals is morally right or wrong. Most people would agree that of course it is wrong. If these heinous acts were committed outside labs,
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.
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.
It has long been debated as to whether it is ethical to use animals for experimentation. When considering whether animal research is ethically acceptable or not two main concerns must be raised. The first issue is whether it is absolutely necessary to use animals in order to acquire information that may contribute to the improvement of people’s health and well-being. The second issue is whether the use of animals is defendable on a moral ground.