Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bad effects of animal testing for the animals
Bad effects of animal testing for the animals
Bad effects of animal testing for the animals
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bad effects of animal testing for the animals
Imagine your dog, your cat, or even your favorite animal being hit by a car. The tests that animals are put through during research are not much different. Every year millions of animals are forced to endure pain and suffering while being put through cruel and unnecessary tests (Newkirk 1). Animal experimentation should be illegal because there are other options for research, it is cruel and unfair to the animals, and because the results are not always accurate.
There are several other ways to conduct experiments that do not use animals. Instead human tissue and living cells can be used to test new drugs and their chemical toxicity (Hayhurst 36). The cell cultures are placed in test tubes, assay plates, or other experimental containers and injected with a small amount of a drug. The cells create an artificial environment exactly like the environment inside a human’s body. Organs from humans or animals can also be used along with bacteria, fertilized chicken eggs, and from embryos (Day 98-99).
Animal cells are more commonly used for testing than human cells are. Some human cells cannot be cultured in labs. Also there is a limited supply of cells from humans. The human cells used only come from tissue that is left over from surgery or from cadavers. A single animal can supply a large amount of cells as well as many different kinds of cells. These cells can be used for toxicity testing and to evaluate the risk of the drug. When cell cultures are used the dosage required is only a very small amount, which prevents the drug from being wasted. The dosage can also be carefully controlled and measured resulting in more accurate data (Day 99).
Organ cells can be used to predict toxicity in target organs such as the l...
... middle of paper ...
...drug had been given to mice, rabbits, rats, and monkeys, and all of them showed no bad effects (Allen 1).
Within minutes the volunteers were writhing on the floor in agony. The drug was designed to dampen the immune response, but instead it supercharged theirs, unleashing a cascade of chemicals. All six of them were sent to the hospital. Several of them suffered permanent organ damage. One man’s head swelled up so badly that the case was referred to as the “elephant man trial” (Allen 1).
Every year millions of animals are used to test products before they are used on humans. People use these products without thinking about the animals that the suffered and died for their benefit. They are selfish, and they never stop to think about the other options for testing, the cruelty of the experiments, or whether or not the test results are even accurate.
Every year over 100 million animals die in the US; the cause for these deaths, animal testing. This injustice to animals involves testing products such as medical drugs or makeup, on poor imprisoned animals that don’t have the ability to stand for their own rights as most of us do. Animals used for testing are given products that may result in burning, poisoning, or death. These animals are forced to live in confined spaces where they wait until the next horrible experiment. They are, tortured beyond imagination as they are sometimes even cut open while they are alive (know as vivisection), either with expired analgesics or even without them.
Sophisticated methods of testing are now being applied to human cells in petri dishes. Human volunteers are also being used and micro-dose with samples so small that they do not cause adverse reactions. The argument exists that these alternative testing methods are not only more cost effective but also more relevant because they are conducted using human cells and specimens; a method that isn’t hindered by species differences. In addition, computer generated models are being used to produce virtual reconstructions in order to test toxicity.
Putting aside the countless claims that animal experimentation is unethical and should be banned, it is incredibly necessary and useful for mankind. Experimenting on humans is inhumane and completely immoral, while animals that do not function in the same way humans do should be used in medical research and to test the safety of various products. If animal testing were illegal, how would worldly corporations determine the safety of products? Surely the valuable lives of human beings are not essential to risk, hence the reason that animal experimenting is necessary. In addition, medical research would be in great jeopardy if were animals were not permitted to be experimented on. Medical industries have already come so far in treating multiple ailments due to the tests performed on animals. Alas, it is safe to say that for the continued thriving of our society, forbidding animal experimentation would be detrimental.
Drugs that pass for animals will not necessarily be safe for humans. "The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release." This is a good example of why animals do not have the same reaction of humans, demonstrating that it may cause problems with the humans health. Statistics have shown...
They fear that without these test subjects, humans will have no insight to what a chemical may do to them before using it. These fears though, would not be worsened by the elimination of animal testing; according to The Food and Drug Administration, about ninety-two out of a hundred drugs tested on animals, do not have the same reaction in humans. This number makes it clear that animal testing is far more destructive than it is effective. Recently, scientists have been more successful in growing cells of human body parts that can be used as a much better candidates for testing. Testing on an actual human organ rather than one that possesses some similarities clearly has a better success rate. Some of the areas these lab grown cells have majorly helped in include cancers, sepsis, kidney diseases, and AIDS. These new developments provide a logical reason to end animal testing altogether, but, many other factors also push for the end of this
Animals have always held a very special place in the hearts of the human race. They are our best friends, our stress relievers, members of our families, and our test subjects for experimentation. For hundreds of years, animals have been used in laboratory settings as a replacement for humans when studying the effects of medical treatments. On average, nearly one hundred million animals are used in clinical trials every year (Ferdowsian). These animals have contributed to hundreds of breakthroughs in the medical field including countless toxicity tests to determine drug toxicity to humans, and exposure to paralyzing anesthetics to create anesthesia used in surgical procedures today. These animals have been vital
and Europe, which include reduction of animal use, refine animal study techniques, and animal testing replacement. According to Dana ,Bidnall, “Animals are also used, and subsequently killed, every year in many other types of laboratory experiments, from military testing to simulated car crashes to deliberately introduced diseases such as AIDS and Alzheimer 's”(49). Bidnal also states that, “These experiments take place in labs at universities, pharmaceutical companies, and testing agencies, and on farms and military bases around the world”(49). The author suggest,”Researchers who conduct experiments on animals argue that it would be unethical to test substances with potentially adverse side effects on humans; animals are good surrogates because their responses are similar to humans”(49).Bidnal contends with ,”However, some animals are chosen for other reasons”(49). According to Bindal, “Animal testing is not the only option in toxicity testing”(50). Bidnal states, “Alternatives are widely available and include human clinical and epidemiological studies; experiments with cadavers, volunteers,and patients; computer simulation and mathematical models; and in vitro (test tube) tissue culture techniques, to name just a
Stokes, W.S. “Animals and the 3 R’s on Toxicology Research and Testing.” Human and Experimental Toxicology December 2015: 7. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 February
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.
Alternative methods are sometimes more reliable, more accurate, cost-effective, practical, and expedient Alternative testing can be used for in preclinical studies .These methods are vitro methods (human cells and tissues), silico models (advanced computer-modeling techniques), studies with human volunteers (microdosing, advanced brain imaging and recording techniques), stem cell, genetic testing methods, computerized patient-drug databases ,virtual drug trials and human-patient simulators can be used for the assessment of the safety of drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, medical devices, consumer and investigational products.
Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). All in all, due to the harsh effects of animal testing, it should be treated as animal cruelty in today’s society.
Since experiments are cruel and expensive, “the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health” (“Alternatives to Animals”). Companies claim that this sort of cruelty will benefit the human population by testing the “safety” of the products, as they have been for hundreds of years, and although this may have been helpful in the past, scientists have discovered otherwise. “While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals tested on continues to increase, the United States still ranks 49th in the world in life expectancy and second worst in infant mortality in the developed world” (“Animal Testing Is”). This evidence shows that while we still continue to support and spend money on animal testing, it is not working as well as we thought.
Simple household items such as lotions, shampoos and cosmetics aren’t very expensive and are within reach for the public, yet the public is not knowledgeable of the fact that the products that they use everyday are put through a series of tests which involve the use of harmless animals. Several large commercial companies do not make products for animals; they decide that using these harmless creatures for the testing of their products, could be cause to be harmful to animals still go forward with these types of procedures on an everyday basis. Although these animals are unable to defend themselves or signs of any form of consent for the near death procedures, these companies find this as a cheap solution for testing their products before placing them on the market. There are many other alternatives to testing animals such as embryonic stem cell research. Animal experimentation is wrong and it can be avoided but companies which are greedy for money chose not to.
Moreover, It is quite obvious that animal testing has done a lot for medical research in the past, and the use of an animal was needed. The main purpose of animal testing is to “Gain basic knowledge; for fundamental medical research; for the discovery and development of drugs and vaccines and medical advances” (Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005 1). However, while that may have been true in the 1900’s, it is certainly not the case in the 21st century. With technology constantly advancing and expanding, researchers have found other alternatives that do not need a live animal body. Such alternatives, like computer models and in vitro testing, give the same amount of medical research without the nereed of harming an animal. Computer programs use specialized models to help design new products. These generated simulations are used to “predict the various possible biological and toxic effects of a chemical or potential drug candidate” (Alternatives to Animal testing: a review 225). It is unreasonable to assume that in the 21st century, animal testing is still the best option for medical research. With technology currently being used for many medical advances, future discoveries of medical research can and should be made without animal
Research, Vioxx Tragedy Spotlights Failure of Animal. Dü. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. tarih yok.