Every year about 241,000 rabbits are tortured in United States laboratories to test for the effects that household products, such as cosmetics, dishwashing liquid, and drain cleaner will have on their eyes ("Rabbits in Laboratories | PETA.org." 1). Scientists will drip chemicals into the eyes of the animal to see how much irritation it will cause, a process known as the Draize eye irritancy test ("Rabbits in Laboratories | PETA.org." 1). The test is certainly not pain free; it often causes distress, such as redness, swelling, and sometimes blindness. After the rabbits are finished being toyed with, they are killed ("Rabbits in Laboratories | PETA.org." 1). The Draize eye irritancy test is just one of the thousands of examples of profuse animal testing that has been going on for centuries. Mice, rats, dogs, pigs, cats, fish, birds and primates are tested every day by human beings in an attempt to learn more about the functions of our own bodies ("Update: Animal Testing" 2). The issue of animal testing has become an important topic of debate because despite the cruel and inhumane treatment of laboratory animals, people who support animal testing claim that the research benefits are phenomenal and surely outweigh the animals’ pain and suffering. I feel as though the question of whether or not animal testing is immoral is an easy answer. Animal testing on any species is unethical and should be abolished as soon as possible because it is a form of animal cruelty, provides inaccurate results, and there are better alternatives that can be pursued. First of all, animal testing is immoral because it involves harming or killing animals for the purpose of “science”. Animals that are tested on are enslaved, beaten, burned, poisoned, electr... ... middle of paper ... ...ewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." AV Magazine CXIII (Spring 2005): 14-15. Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2011. Philips, Trevor. "Human Self-Interest Will Ensure That Animal Experimentation Continues." The Independent (25 Apr. 1998). Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. "Rabbits in Laboratories | PETA.org." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The Animal Rights Organization | PETA.org. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. "Update: Animal Testing." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 31 Mar. 2006. Web. 20 Apr. 2011.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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
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...
Writing this paper did not affect my original line of thinking in regards to the topic. I support animal rights in every way, and am extremely against any sort of testing. Observing the “necessities” of animal testing did not, in any way, alter my negative view of animal experimentation.
Every year approximately 100 million animals are killed as a part of scientific research in the United States alone. Animal testing is a highly controversial practice in the modern world. There are records of animals being used in biological and medicinal research as far back as 384 BCE with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Many people believe animal testing is unethical as it is bringing harm to animals in order to benefit humans. Ever since the beginning of this practice, animal testing has been used for a variety of purposes, all of which are inhumane and unethical.
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.
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.
Hundreds of millions of animals die every year from animal testing in the United States. Innocent animals are used everyday in laboratories for biology advancements, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetic testing. They are used to provide information to make better products that are safe for human use. Although animal experimentation has some benefits, the negatives outweigh the positives. Animal testing is killing off innocent beings for the possible human benefit, and with modern technology, there are alternative ways to test products that leave animals unharmed.
Orlans, F Barbara. (1990). Animals, Science, and Ethics--Section V. Policy Issues in the Use of Animals in Research, Testing, and Education. The Hastings Center Report, 20(3), S25-30. Retrieved April 28, 2011, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1658998).
First of all, animal testing should be banned in order to protect the rights of animals. In other words, animals’ rights are infringed by experimenting on them. Animals and humans are similar in many ways. To begin with, they have similar levels of biological complexity. They both are aware that they exist and they both make conscious choices. Philosophy professor at North Carolina State University Tom Regan points out "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment." (F. B. Orlans) Experimentation on an animal ...