Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
should animal be used for research
should animal be used for research
should animal be used for research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: should animal be used for research
“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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
Animals should be used for research and Experimentation because if the animals get sick or show any signs of acting abnormal then the scientists know it isn’t safe for humans to use. Animal research has played a big role in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade. Animals have the same organ system that perform the same task, which helps determine if what is being tested is safe for humans to use. Most of the medicines animals use the same medicine as humans like antibiotics, pain killers, and many more this helps to see if the medicine cures the animals without any harmful consequences then it would be safe and useful for humans to use.
There is so much to be discovered in our vast world of technology. Scientists and researchers work hard everyday to educate themselves and others on the advances capable of being achieved. There are people learning about new technology, different scientific and medical methods, and most of all medicine everyday. However, there is always a price to pay with hypotheses running their course through experiments, and that is the testing subject. Scientists feel the best choice for such research is to use animals to be tested, and that great achievements in the science world are worth it. Just as these scientists are, testing on innocent animals is completely wrong. Just because they are available for testing, and don’t have any ability to opt out in these experiments, does not mean they are right for the job.
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.
How will animal research tell us the outcomes of the human body? How can we live longer and healthier lives with the use of animals? Do animals have a link to the human body that we are able to prove that trying new drugs or new cosmetics will be a benefit for us? I disagree. I believe we test on animals to figure out what are the possible outcomes for humans; however, the use of animals is cruel and unnecessary because they do not have a similar body system as humans do.
For countless decades humans have taken it upon themselves to take defenseless innocent wild animals to test and experiment on them. Ranging from powerful drugs and lotions to chemicals, vaccines, and packing materials. The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial subject for the past thirty years. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. An integral part of the debate, over animal testing and experiments, mainly centers on the question of an animals moral status. Most people would agree that animals have some moral status. Which is why we find it wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals.
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.
As in any debate though there is always an opposing side, which seems to toss out their opinions and facts as frequently as the rest. So many in today’s world view animal research as morally wrong and believe animals do have rights. 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.
The deployment of animals for medical research has brought heated debates from both the proponents and opponents each holding to their views in a tight manner. Those who are in support of animal research argue that it has been constituting a vital element in the advancement of medical sciences throughout the world providing insights to various diseases, which have helped in the discovery and development of various medicines that have brought an improvement in the qualify of living of people. Such discoveries have gone so deep that but for them many would have died a premature death because no cure would have been found for the diseases that they were otherwise suffering. On the other hand, animal lovers and animal right extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also Cruel. Human kind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislations to put an end to using animals by the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the view of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....
A large issue is animal testing. “More than 25 million vertebrate animals are used in testing in the United States each year. When invertebrate animals are thrown into the mix, the estimated number rises to as high as 100 million.”(dosomething) The laboratory testing of animals is important to biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals to extend their understanding of the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases for humans and other animals. However, the morality, the necessity, or the validity of the studies are questionable. Thousands of animals are helplessly killed every year that animal testing is being conducted. “Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research” (about my planet). This can cause harm to the animals and may in turn be fatal. It is not fair nor is it humane to conduct experiments on animals to make sure a product or procedure is safe for us. There are no reasons to regard an animal’s life as if it is insignificant in contrast to a human life. During the testing, animals may be force fed or put in restraints in order for the scientists to get the product into their systems. Ani...
It has long been debated as to whether it is ethical to use animals for experimentation. When considering whether animal research is ethically acceptable or not two main concerns must be raised. The first issue is whether it is absolutely necessary to use animals in order to acquire information that may contribute to the improvement of people’s health and well-being. The second issue is whether the use of animals is defendable on a moral ground.