Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should animals be used for scientific testing
Should animals be used for scientific testing
Research paper animal testing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Should animals be used for scientific testing
Animal Testing for Humanity
Animal research is vital to human existence. This testing enables doctors to find treatments and cures for various diseases and aliments. The people, who object and think that 'mad' scientists preform all animal research, merely do not understand the importance. There are many regulatory acts protecting the animals in experiments, therefore proving that ending animal research all together would be a harsh blow to society.
The regulations, such as the Animal Welfare Act, which ensures that animal, care for research is a main priority. The AWA requires appropriate veterinary care, housing, feeding, handling, sanitation, ventilation, and sheltering. Also, in that act the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is required to make at least one unannounced inspection a year to each facility.
Another regulatory requirement is that the United States Department of Agriculture requires institutions to report the number of animals used in research and the number of animals that experience pain or distress. In a 1996 report to Congress, the USDA showed that eighty-nine percent of experiments reported did not involve pain or distress.
Animal research has proven to be a very controversial issue to many. Many myths surround it. Activists say that doctors to torture the animals, which is not true. These myths have been created by animal rights groups who want to fill other?s minds with distorted images of experiments.
...
Without animal research, cures for such diseases as typhoid, diphtheria, and polio might never have existed. Without animal research, the development of antibiotics and insulin would have been delayed. Without animal research, many human beings would now be dead. However, because of animal testing, 200,000 dogs, 50,000 cats, 60,000 primates, 1.5 million hamsters, and uncounted millions of rats and mice are experimented upon and die each year, as living fodder for the great human scientific machine. Some would say that animal research is an integral part of progress; unfortunately, this is often true. On the whole, animal testing is a necessary evil that should be reduced and eliminated whenever possible.
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
In this argumentative essay written by Dr. Ron Kline a pediatrician who wrote his essay titled “A Scientist: I am the enemy”. The article gives an insight on how animal research has helped many people and shine a light on the benefits of animal research. Ron Kline is the director of bone marrow transplants at the University of Louisville. Furthermore, the essay explains his thoughts and his own reasons for his love of medical research. In addition, the essay include the opposing side of the argument which has a lot feedback from activist groups that think that animal research is horrible.
The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian). The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning. Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty..."). Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes. Recently though, the focus of the death penalty debate has been on moral and legal issues. The murderers of today's society can be assured of a much longer life even after conviction, with the constraints of the appeals process slowing the implementation of their death sentence. In most cases, the appeal process lasts several years, during which time criminals enjoy comfortable lives. They have television, gym facilities, and the leisure time to attend free college-level classes that most American citizens must struggle to afford. Foremost, these murderers have the luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed. It is time this country realized the only true justice for these criminals is in the form of the death penalty. The death penalty should be administered for particularly heinous crimes.
Berniece receives protection from her uncle Doaker because she lives in his house. She feels secure because Doaker has a railroad job and it gives him financial stability. Also Boy Willie demonstrates protection by fighting Sutter’s ghost to get rid of it out of the house. Bernice is upset about the violence and stealing that is present in the men of her family. She narrates, “You, Papa Boy Charles, Wining Boy, Doaker, Crawley …you’re all alike. All this thieving and killing and thieving and killing. And what it ever lead to? More killing and more thieving. I ain’t never seen it come to nothing” (Piano 1232. Act 1 Scene 2). Boy Willie admits that he stole things, but he denies killing a person. Berniece believes he caused Crawley’s death. However, I disagree with Berniece because Crawley tried to defend himself by showing his gun to the white men and they shot him. Basically, Berniece is experiencing anger and this emotion is a coping mechanism that helps her to deal with the death of
The Death Penalty practice has always been a topic of major debate and ethical concern among citizens in society. The death penalty can be defined as the authorization to legally kill a person as punishment for committing a crime, this practice is also known as Capital Punishment. The purpose of creating a harsher punishment for criminals was to deter other people from committing atrocious crimes and it was also intended to serve as a way of incapacitation and retribution. In fact, deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution are some of the basic concepts in the justice system, which explain the intentions of creating punishments as a consequence for illegal conduct. In the United States, the Congress approved the federal death penalty on June 25, 1790 and according to the Death Penalty Focus (DPF, 2011) organization website “there have been 343 executions, two of which were women”.
Every year about 100 million animals suffer through being poisoned, shocked, and burned for unsuccessful medical research. Some may believe that animal testing is a crucial part to medical research and should be used more frequently. Others believe the pain and suffering inflicted upon the animals is morally wrong and should not be done, no matter what benefits come from it.
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.
In conclusion, our justice system is full of flaws and proves to show why the death penalty should be abolished. The reasons for it to be abolished include: financials cost, long drawn out process, more effective sentencing styles, the conviction and execution of an innocent person and the violation of the “cruel and unusual” punishment clause in the Bill of Rights. While the death penalty may seem like the right thing to do under the philosophy of “Eye for Eye”, it only encourages the ongoing process of criminal behavior. Our criminal justice system is blurred and sometimes ineffective when it comes to certain cases. Moreover, justice can be bought rather served.
The death penalty continues to be an issue of controversy and is an issue that will be debated in the United States for many years to come. According to Hugo A. Bedau, the writer of “The Death Penalty in America”, capital punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. The death penalty has been used since ancient times for a variety of offenses. The Bible says that death should be done to anyone who commits murder, larceny, rapes, and burglary. It appears that public debate on the death penalty has changed over the years and is still changing, but there are still some out there who are for the death penalty and will continue to believe that it’s a good punishment. I always hear a lot of people say “an eye for an eye.” Most people feel strongly that if a criminal took the life of another, their’s should be taken away as well, and I don’t see how the death penalty could deter anyone from committing crimes if your going to do the crime then at that moment your not thinking about being on death role. I don’t think they should be put to death they should just sit in a cell for the rest of their life and think about how they destroy other families. A change in views and attitudes about the death penalty are likely attributed to results from social science research. The changes suggest a gradual movement toward the eventual abolition of capital punishment in America (Radelet and Borg, 2000).
Although not as strictly addressed, there is still a schism when it comes to the matters of experimentation involving animals. Those in opposition of it see it as being against the will of the animal, because animals have no say in the matter. However, through animal experimentation there has been vast medical advances in hospitals and veterinarians , research has led to cures for various diseases that would normally take many more years to cure, and the use of animals is highly ethical considering what could be the alternative, although there is progress being made to change these measures. This is how animal experimentation is of use to society for humans and animals.
When someone goes to the store and buys a product, or is prescribed medication, they don’t have to worry if the product is safe to use nor should they. The entire human race benefits from animal research. “Without animal research, medical science would come to a total standstill”(O’Neil 210). It is not as if Scientist and researchers just sit in their labs all day and torture animals for fun. Not to mention animal use is being reduced as much as possible, “most scientist are glad to use alternative test because they are usually faster and cheaper than test on animals”(Yount 72). However, “you cannot study kidney transplantation or diarrhea or high bloodpressure on a computer screen”(O’Neil 212). Besides, “Animal research has led to vaccines against diptheria, rabies, tuberculosis, polio, measles, mumps, cholera, whooping cough, and rubella. It has meant eradication of smallpox, effective treatment for diabetes and control of infection with powerful antibiotics. The cardiac pacemaker, microsurgery to reattach severed limbs, and heart, kidney, lung, liver and other transplants are all possible because of animal research”(O’Neil 210).
As in any debate though there is always an opposing side, which seems to toss out their opinions and facts as frequently as the rest. So many in today’s world view animal research as morally wrong and believe animals do have rights. Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection.
...ines to stop dangerous diseases (Paul). Animal research has played a vital role in medical science for the last century. Animal testing has been very essential to medical research and have led to discovering new tools to help individuals. Because of animal testing we have discovered new medicines and procedures to benefit people such as, antibiotics, blood transfusions, organ-transplantations, and vaccinations. Animal organizations and activist has little knowledge on medical research, so they don’t know how this research benefits us. Animal testing has proven to be a very important part in medical studies and it will continue to be for generations to generations. Animal testing will never end but evolve and lead us to further medical understanding. Without animal testing we would be expose to chemical, Air-Bourne, and contagious diseases this world will hand to us.
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.