Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
animal testing ethical issue
medical advancements with animal testing
Advantages of the animal testing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: animal testing ethical issue
Everyday people are using products not knowing who, what, where, why or how these products are being made from. Many companies are neglecting the use of animal experimentation by the fact that there are alternative ways to test their products without testing them on animals. If alternative methods have been discovered that are more humane and effective, why aren’t companies using them? By using alternative methods to animal testing, products and some medicines would be cheaper and more reliable to humans. How ethical is animal testing compared to other methods of testing products for humane medical use? Today a lot of people are just looking for the most effective product out there to use. If animals aren’t used for testing products, consumers are more likely to buy these products. Humans are more at risk for side effects because animals don’t always get accurate results. Animals and humans are not exactly the same so the reaction to a drug in an animal’s body is going to be quite different from a reaction in a human’s body. Also when an animal is under a lot of stress it can lead to un-accurate results. Animal testing costs a huge amount of money as the animals need to be fed, housed, cared for, and treated with a particular experimental substance. Different reactions to different medications are unique to each species of animal. For example, penicillin kills guinea pigs but it is totally inactive in rabbits. When tested on animals the results are not always the same. Alternative methods would be beneficial to companies so that they don’t loose money when people start to not by their product. Researching on the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) website a Journal of the American Medical Association and British M... ... middle of paper ... ...w advancements in the areas of molecular biology and computer technology. Works Cited "Alternatives to Animal Testing." PETA.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. "Alternatives: Testing Without Torture." PETA.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. "Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons." Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. Wepworth, Adam. "Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation." (n.d.): n. pag. 16 July 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2013. "Is Animal Testing Justified? (The Big Questions)." YouTube. YouTube, 18 Mar. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. N, Ranganathan, and I. J. Kuppast. "A Review on Alternatives to Animal Testing Methods in Drug Development." Ebscohost. N.p., 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2013. Wepworth, Adam. "Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation." (n.d.): n. pag. 16 July 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2013.
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.
Throughout my paper, I felt as though I was able to give a solid and fair representation of the opposing viewpoint on issue of animal testing. However, it was challenging because I strongly oppose animal testing.
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.
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.
McKay, Michele. "The Cruelty of Lab Animal Testing." Down to Earth. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
companies must not be able to test on animals without knowing that the product will be successful. Scientists and researchers use animals to test human products on. Animal testing is harmful and ineffective for humans.
I scan my keycard and walk through a set of double doors, past the examination rooms and a door labeled organic waste. I walk into a complex and intricate maze of dark hallways. The doors read canine testing, swine feeding lab and primate testing environment. Upon looking into the dark rooms; one can make out the cages that once held chimpanzees. The sole purpose of this area is animal experimentation. This area, one of the most secure on the campus, has a separate dock and security cameras at every turn. I have had the opportunity to work in the animal labs of one of the largest corporations in the world. This discourse is my argument on animal experimentation and why the state should allow animal testing for the sake of humanity but should restrict needless suffering to animals.
Ferdowsian, Hope R. "Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research." EBSCO Animals. EBSCO, Sept. 2011. Web. Mar. 2014.
"Does animal testing work? - By Arthur Allen -." Slate Magazine. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. .
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims to experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical i...
Scientific men are under definite obligation to experiment upon animals so far as that is the alternative to random and possibly harmful experimentation upon human beings, and so far as such experimentation is a means of saving human life and of increasing human vigor and efficiency (the ethics of animal experimentation)
Not only do we have other options for these tests, but animals testing has actually been proven to be ineffective. 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.Essentially we are torturing the animals for a negative outcome, both for the human and the animal. The Food and Drug Administration reports that “92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans” (“Top Five Reasons”). If the products and drugs that we are testing on the animals are not working then there is no use in harming a harmless animal for them. Some may disagree and say that animal testing has enabled us to develop many life saving treatments for both humans and animals. But in reality there has been more cons then pros in animal testing. For example, “Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market” (Should Animals Be). While animal testing has enabled us to create great products it is usually ineffective on humans and leads to animals being harmed for no
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.
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).
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.