“Maybe not wrong for everyone---it was clearly a complicated and individual choice---but wrong for me” (McCarthy 638). The use of animals in scientific research provokes ethical issues and casts doubt on the reliability of using animals in testing. Alternatives to animal testing are accessible and should be used instead of living animals. The personal choices dealing with animal testing proposes ethical issues that make people use their intuition. The preservation of life is choice. Poste says, “A hallmark of humanity is our ability to care about other species” (Poste). Poste recognizes a genuine principle that is shown throughout history. There have been animals that have almost gone extinct. Something inside of humans recognized this and observed preservation as a necessity. The care inside human’s hearts is what prevented the nearly-extinct animals to continue living. The same care should carry over again for defenseless creatures that are being continuously researched on. McCarthy states, “Nobody seemed happy” (McCarthy 636). McCarthy also identifies a problem when in her essay; she discloses information of the first grout to finish their lab on animal research, namely dogs. The disdain that McCarthy saw in her fellow colleagues leads the reader to see that something inside them felt bad. Furthermore, the human desire is to protect lives, not execute them. That feeling of hurt or the need to take care of something reiterates the preservation of life that is inside everyone. Evidenced by the researchers’ compassion, humans’ feelings towards animals are very personal. In the article, “An Ethical Argument Against Vivisection”, “Animals are seen simply as resources – as little more than products to make our lives more convenient ... ... middle of paper ... ... we are morally obligated to protect infants, the developmentally disabled, and the mentally ill” (“An Ethical Argument Against Vivisection”). Humans have to realize that the choice is in their hands. Animal testing is wrong and people must stand up for animals because no one else can. Works Cited "ANIMALS IN SCIENCE." An Ethical Argument Against Vivisection. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. "ANIMALS IN SCIENCE." Animals in Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. "ANIMALS IN SCIENCE." Framing the Scientific Argument. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. McCarthy, Claire, “Dog Lab,” from Learning How the Heart Beats. Copyright © 1995 by Claire McCarthy. Used by permission of Viking Penguin, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Poste, George. “Animal testing a necessary research tool, for now.” The Arizona Republic. Azcentral.com, 3 Sept. 2006. Print 31 May, 2012.
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
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.
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...
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...
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.
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.
The ethics of animal testing has been debated about since the late 1800s. Human beings feel that they are superior to animals because of the animals’ incapability of reasoning or eloquently expressing themselves like humans can. Animal testing dates as far back as ancient Greek and Roman colonies when people would dissect animals for pure curiosity and the acquirement of knowledge. Vivisections, the act of operating on live animals, occurred later on. Realdo Colombo was infamous for performing vivisection on pregnant dogs. He would take out a fetus from the dog’s womb and torment her young offspring in front of her. Despite the pain the mother dog experienced, she would bark furiously and attempt to reach her offspring. When Colombo gave her the puppy, she would tenderly lick it. This clearly demonstrates that the mother dog was far more concerned about her pup’s condition than her own well-being. This experiment on the pregnant dog is a blatant example of motherly love, which begs the question: Why would a human mother not instinctively act in this way, too? As Jeremy Bentham states, “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?” (Evans). Testing on animals is inhumane and callous; consequently, it should be abolished.
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...
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.
Hurting an animal is better than hurting a fellow human being right? Well imagine a child being ripped away from his mother in today’s society, for no reason. Would that be considered okay, or kidnapping? Imagine humans being forced to breed, just so their children can be tortured for makeup or a new facial wash. Would that be considered okay, or morally incorrect? People do not see animals as fellow living things, because they do not have the power to say no like a person can. They can’t stand up for themselves, leaving the people of the world to do it for them. Seeing that there are other ways to test out consumer products, why harm defenseless, breathing, loving, beings? With all things considered, animal testing “has no place in science today” (Goodall, 1).
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.
Throughout centuries medical research has been conducted on animals. “Animals were used in early studies to discover how blood circulates through the body, the effect of anesthesia, and the relationship between bacteria and disease” (AMA 59). Experiments such as these seem to be outdated and actually are by today’s means, scientists now study commonly for three general purposes: (1) biomedical and behavioral research, (2) education, (3) drug and product testing (AMA 60). These three types of experiments allow scientists to gain vast amounts of knowledge about human b...
The use of animals in laboratory experimentation is unethical and strongly against animal rights. The abuse that animals are forced through cannot be justified when an animal is unable to sign it’s life away for testing. Millions of animals are murdered or left debilitated because of something against their own will. The experiments are severely graphic and painful, even for the smallest of tests.
Every year, millions of animals experience painful, suffering and death due to results of scientific research as the effects of drugs, medical procedures, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. Basically, animal experimentation has played a dominant role in leading with new findings and human advantages. Animal research has had a main function in many scientific and medical advances in the past decade and is helping in the understanding of several diseases. While most people believe than animal testing is necessary, others are worried about the excessive suffering of this innocent’s creatures. The balance between the rights of animals and their use in medical research is a delicate issue with huge societal assumptions. Nowadays people are trying to understand and take in consideration these social implications based in animals rights. Even though, many people tend to disregard animals that have suffered permanent damage during experimentation time. Many people try to misunderstand the nature of life that animals just have, and are unable to consider the actual laboratory procedures and techniques that these creatures tend to be submitted. Animal experimentation must be excluded because it is an inhumane way of treat animals, it is unethical, and exist safer ways to test products without painful test.