Because of animal experimentation, scientists are able to advance in medicine and find cures and treatments, but all this must pay a prize. Animals in these experiments suffer and even die for the cause. Many argue that it is inhumane and cruel. Others would argue that animal experimentation is beneficial and necessary. The viewpoints between Jane Goodall and Dario Ringach are different when it comes to animal testing, but they’re after the same goal: caring for the animals and wanting to look for cures and treatments.
Dr. Jane Goodall, a primatologist and ethologist, believes that animal testing is "morally, and ethically unacceptable". In her article, "So Much Animal Pain, So Little Human Gain", she states that animal testing does not benefit for humans and how much the animal suffer in the experiment. Using animal in research can't always predict the results for humans. There are some cases that even though the experiment succeeded, it wasn't safe for humans. Around 92% of drugs that passed in the animal testing didn't work with humans (Top 5 Reason). The reason is that animals are different from humans. Even though animals can't talk or make judgments like humans, they have emotions, consciousness, and intelligence. The animals can feel stress, fear, and pain during the experiment. She claims that there are alternatives other than animals like using cells, computer models, and more. She also includes that animal testing cost a lot more than the alternatives. The biggest issue when it comes to animal testing is how animals are treated during the experiment. Although animals are protected from the Animal Welfare Act, not all animals that are used for research are not protected. With that, there are chances that they can be ...
... middle of paper ...
...red and tested. There can be a compromise if the Animal Welfare Act protects all the species used for research, reduce and eliminate pain, and looking for better alternatives. Maybe in the near future, the alternatives will replace animals and then they won't be needed for research
"About FDA." Why Are Animals Used for Testing Medical Products? N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
Goodall, Jane. "So Much Animal Pain, so Little Human Gain." The Times [London] 17 Mar. 2012, Opinions sec.: n. pag. 17 Mar. 2012. Web.
ProCon.org. "Animal Testing" ProCon.org. 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
Ringach, Dario L. "The Use of Nonhuman Animals in Biomedical Research." The American Journal of the Medical Sciences 342.4 (2011): 305-13. Print
"Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing." PETA Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing Comments. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2014
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.
Zak, Steven. “Ethics and Animals.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2007
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
When Goodall asserts that scientists shouldn’t mindlessly test animals if alternative tests are available, she is in effect conceding that sometimes animals will have to suffer for the sake of helping human beings. Yet if it is unacceptable in some cases to cause sentient beings to suffer, why would it not always be unacceptable? When could compassionate people be comfortable with the prospect of causing David Greybeard mental and p...
For centuries scientists have used animals to study the causes of diseases; to test drugs, vaccines and surgical techniques; and to evaluate the safety of chemicals used in pesticides, cosmetics and other products. However, many scientists amongst animal- right activists forbid the use of animals in scientific research regardless how many illnesses are eliminated through the use of animals in scientific research. Amongst animal right activists, David Suzuki also raises concerns towards animal experimentation. In his article, The Pain of Animals, Suzuki argues that humans have no right to exploit animals because--much like humans--animals also experience pain. In contrast to Suzuki, Haldane, in his article, Some Enemies of Science, argues because animals are very similar to humans, scientists have no choice but to use animals in scientific experiments. Both authors greatly contrast their opinions towards animal experimentation; however Haldane has a more explanatory approach towards animal experimentation. He argues animal experimentation should be acceptable because other forms of animal exploitation are acceptable in society. Secondly, unlike other forms of exploitation which seek pleasure in killing animals such as leisure sport, scientists, most likely do not harm animals; if pain is intended on an animal it is strictly for the purpose of scientific advancement. Thirdly, although, animal experimentation may cause some extinction, it is only one of many other causes of extinction, if other causes are not condemned; then neither should animal experiment...
...s Human and Animal Lives." Americans for Medical Progress. (20 March 1999). "Animal Research Holds the Key to Saving Human Lives." Americans for Medical Progress. (20 March 1999). Ball, Matt and Anne Green, and Jack Norris. "Veganism as the Path to Animal Liberation." The Animal's Agenda Sep/Oct 1998: 44-45. Botting, Jack H. and Adrian R. Morrison. "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine." Scientific American. 187 February 1997: 83-85. D. E. "Skin Stand-Ins." Scientific American. September 1990: 168. James-Enger, Kelly. "Beyond Animal Testing." Vegetarian Times. October 1998: 254. "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." (20 March 1999). "21 Things You May Not Know About the Animal Rights Movement." Americans for Medical Progress. (20 March 1999). U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal Welfare Report Fiscal Year 1997.
. "Fourty reasons why we need Animal testing ." http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/about-us/the-science-action-network/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research/. understanding animal research, August 15, 2013. Web. 21 Nov 2013.
According to the Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force-feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation and the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies. Additionally, in 2010 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 97, 123 animals suffered pain during experiments while being refused any anesthesia for relief. (“Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?”) No animals deserve to be treated with this kind of cruelty in a sad attempt to benefit human health. Prior to testing, it is a known fact that the animals may never survive or live past the testing. This is because the drugs they use on the animals may be very lethal, some even causing instant death upon exposure. Consequently, animal testing should not continue because the lives of many innocent animals are unnecessarily taken away due to the
Each year in the United States close to 26 million animals including, mice, rabbits, cats, dogs, and most commonly chimpanzees are tested both for scientific research and conventional research. Animals are tested in treatments to determine how a drug or treatment will affect a human being, and several more health care purposes. This is nothing new though, animal testing has been practiced since 500 BC. Animal testing is both morally and ethically wrong and needs to be put to a stop.
When many people think of animal testing, the average person thinks about millions of dogs and cats being injected with dangerous chemicals and substances. However, this is usually not the case. 61% of animals that have been used for research suffered absolutely no pain. 31% have had their pain numbed by anesthesia. Only 6% of animals tested actually experienced pain. The misconception of millions of animals being tortured is extremely wrong. 6% is not very many animals that actually experience any type of pain. Also, the pain is usually helpful to show how the procedure would harm humans. The animals’ pain actually saves human beings pain. Animal Testers are seen as the “bad guys”, when less than one dog/cat is used for research and studies for every 50 destroyed by animal pounds across the country. Millions and millions of animals are euthanized when they cannot be taken care of in a shelter anymore. Another assumption made with animal testing is that it is mostly dogs and cats. However, less than 1.5% of testing is done on these species of animals. Humans share 95% of the genes with a mouse, which makes them a great model for the human body (Animal R...
For years now people have been using animal experimentation to create new ways to help save the human race. There are people who believe that it does help, and that it is necessary to continue, while others oppose and want to fight for the elimination of animal experimentation. Scientists fight for the cures needed to help man kind, but struggle to do so as people fight against their work in progress. But as Jennifer A. Hurley stated, “History has already shown that animal experimentation is not essential to medical progress.” Stuart W.G. Derbyshire believes “The best hopes to treat or cure any number of diseases all rely in the current animal experiments.” Both sides have evidence that can allow both to be proven correct. But there are negative arguments that can prove the other wise. The real question to ask is, Does animal experimentation really help advance medical research?
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.
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.