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 Marjorie Cramer described Lynne Kiorpes’ work as “outdated, using antiquated techniques” (Gazzola 1).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.
In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a heavily debated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains uncertain. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity.
Throughout all of human history, the pattern has remained the same—human technological and scientific progress has always involved testing on animals. Without that testing, modern medicine would be a shadow of what it is today. Many modern procedures stem directly from testing with animals. In addition, doctors and surgeons receive much of their training with the living tissues of animals. Computer simulations and other methods simply cannot compete with experience on a living being. For example, the United States Army formerly shot goats to train physician responses to gunshot wounds (Cole ...
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
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 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.
Over 100 Million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in testing labs every year. Animals are used to test the safety of products, advance scientific research, and develop models to study disease and to develop new medical treatments, all for the sake of mankind. Animals should not be used for scientific research because animal testing is inhumane, other testing methods now exist, and animals are very different from human beings. While animal testing has led to many life-saving cures, animal testing is cruel and inhumane because it involves inflicting pain and harm on the test subject to study its effects and remedies. Testing involves physically restraining, force-feeding, and depriving animals of food and water.
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.
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...
Every year, millions of animals are injured or killed in scientific experiments across the world. Those in favor of animal experimentation say they’re taking animals’ lives to save humans. But is it really necessary to subject animals to torturous conditions or painful experiments in the name of science? Is it ethical to destroy an animal’s life while simply testing lipstick or shampoo? Animal experimentation, like many of the issues we face today, is difficult to argue against, and just as hard to support, but it is necessary to continue this experimentation in order to advance human knowledge and to help save human lives.
For thousands of years scientist have been performing vivisections on animals to find information on new chemicals, drugs, and vaccines. Vivisection is when scientist perform dissections among living animals mostly for the purpose of educating and retrieving information. Experimenting on animals has become the tool that has helped us comprehend the body functions of an animal and how a disease transforms the bodily functions, but over the years it’s caused animal rights activists to question the usefulness and the sincerity of using animals for this purpose. Although animal research has been helpful in the past, it is morally wrong in the sense that experimenting on animals is not the only way to collect information. There are other alternatives
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.
The history of animal experimentation and tests, and the argument surrounding it, has an expansive and somewhat extensive history. Some of the first medical research that was conducted on living animals was done by Aelius Galenus, better known as Galen, in the second century C.E. There have been examples of animal testing in earlier dates, but Galen devoted his life to understanding science and medicine, so he is attributed to being the father of vivisection. In the twelfth century, an Arabic physician named Avenzoar introduced animal testing dissections as a means to better understand surgery before preforming the operation on a human patient. Edmund O’Meara made one of the first opposing ar...
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. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.
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,
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