Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros of animal testing essay
Negative effects of animal testing
Why animal testing is bad pros and cons
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros of animal testing essay
Every year there are tens of millions of animals like rats, dogs, birds, and farm animals that are killed to discover new information on medical discoveries, product testing, and for educational purposes. Many believe animal testing is inhumane because just like humans, animals feel pain as well, but others believe we should not treat animals as moral equals. However, in the recent years there have been new products introduced to decrease the use of animal testing or even possibly completely stopping it. Using animals for medical experimentation, product testing, and education is a controversial subject that often leads to a large argument. While the problems can go into detail, the suffering involved in animal experimentation is painfully clear. Every year there are tens of millions of animals that die in federally and privately funded experiments. A projected 90 percent of all animals used in research are rats and mice, and many other species including guinea pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, nonhuman primates, and farm animals are killed every year to animal testing. (UGA) The experimentation of animals and testing has not stopped because it is not the most accurate or reliable means of research, but because of the tradition, peer pressure, and large amounts of funding from those with strong invested interests into the business. (UGA) The people that support animal testing dispute that without testing many of the medications and procedures that we have today wouldn’t exist and research and growth in the medical field would be very restricted. For scientists and researchers to be able to work on animals, they have made some great discoveries. Surgery on animals has helped in development of organ transplants and open-heart surgery te... ... middle of paper ... ...ls in science : AAVS. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. . "Animal Experimentation: Debatabase - Debate Topics and Debate Motions." IDEA: International Debate Education Association - Debate Resources & Debate Tools. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. . "Animal Testing and Ethics." Santa Clara University - Welcome. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. . "Animal Testing." Northern Virginia Community College. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. . "Does animal testing work? - By Arthur Allen -." Slate Magazine. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. . "Speak Out for Species (S.O.S) - Animals Used in Experiments and Testing." University of Georgia. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. .
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
Without animal research, cures for such diseases as typhoid, diphtheria, and polio might never have existed. Without animal research, the development of antibiotics and insulin would have been delayed. Without animal research, many human beings would now be dead. However, because of animal testing, 200,000 dogs, 50,000 cats, 60,000 primates, 1.5 million hamsters, and uncounted millions of rats and mice are experimented upon and die each year, as living fodder for the great human scientific machine. Some would say that animal research is an integral part of progress; unfortunately, this is often true. On the whole, animal testing is a necessary evil that should be reduced and eliminated whenever possible.
In modern society, animal experimentation has triggered a controversy; consequently, vast amount of protests have been initiated by the animal rights community. Although these organizations have successfully broadcasted their concerns toward animal experimentation, its application continues to survive. Sally Driscoll and Laura Finley inform that there remain fifty million to one-hundred million animals that experience testing or experimentation throughout the world on a yearly basis. But despite opposition, animal experimentation, the use of experiments on animals in order to observe the effects an unknown substance has on living creatures, serves multiple purposes. Those particular purposes are: research of the living body, the testing of
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.
Animals are used as a part of experimentations in order to accomplish new openings. A few individuals think that it is satisfactory, while others contend that it is not moral to sacrifice animals for science. Estimated, that fifty to one hundred million of animals are used for tests in the world. Despite the significance of experiments, the quantity of animals and purpose of research are not under any control. Animals testing should be banned under a few circumstances; we can enhance the situation by using alternative ways such as replacement, reduction, and refinement according to International Society for Applied Ethology.
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.
According to the California Biomedical Research Association, almost every medical advancement in the last 100 years is a direct result of animal testing and research. The use of animals has become standard procedure in a wide range of testing and experimentation, including product toxicity testing, biomedical and veterinary experiments, drug development and testing, and education. Major advancements in treating and understanding chronic conditions such as cancer, cystic fibrosis, malaria, and tuberculosis, have been achieved due to animal research. Also, the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics are also direct results of the testing and observation of animals. On the other hand, many people believe that animal testing is cruel and inhumane. In many laboratories animals are subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, physical restraints, and infliction of pain. Because the animals cannot protect themselves, many people argue that exploiting animals to better the lives of humans is wrong and should not be permitted.
In Indra Sinha’s Animal’s People, he provides the reader with a fictional account of the Bhopal Disaster through the eyes of a deformed teenager in a fictional town named Khaufpor. This teenager calls himself ‘Animal’ because his deformity bent his spine to the point where he must walk on all fours, making him feel inhuman. With his mother and father dead, he accepts the name as his own and denies his own humanity. Although Animal tries to separate himself from his humanity because of the pain it causes him, he is forced to accept his humanity through his friends’ guidance and the inner and external conflicts that he faces meaning that humanity is unavoidable.
According to an article by PETA, “experiments on animals are cruel, expensive and generally inapplicable to humans” (PETA 1). This shows how not only many laboratories and companies that use animals in their experiments are wasting money and time, but also wasting countless lives of animals. As a human, one does not have to suffer through unconsenting pain because no one would ever consent to be treated the way lab rats would be treated. A study done by the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that” medical treatments developed in animals rarely translated to humans” (Hackam, Redelmeier 1). This being said, it is not easy to comprehend why animal testing continues. However, as a community people think that “the benefits to humans does not justify the harm to animals” (Hajar 1). This goes to show how people who are pro-animal testing, marginalize the damage animal testing is doing to animals. While some may say that there needs to be alternative methods to animal testing, others may say that without animal testing it would be harder to test out new products for humans. Yet, with the information given by doctors Hackam and Redelmeier, it is clear to see that the use of animals is no longer
Throughout history, animal testing has played an important role in leading to new discoveries and human benefit. However, what many people forget are the great numbers of animals that have suffered serious harm during the process of animal testing. Animal testing is the use of animals in biological, medical, and psychological studies. The development and enhancement of medical research has been based on the testing of animals. There are many questions being asked if animal research is good or not or if the benefit for us is way greater the abuse of animals. Doing tests on animals can help find ways to cure diseases, but testing on them is wrong. Although we want to find cures for diseases to help many people, testing on animals not only brutally hurts them but it also denies the animals the rights they have.
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.
Every year about 100 million animals suffer through being poisoned, shocked, and burned for unsuccessful medical research. Some may believe that animal testing is a crucial part to medical research and should be used more frequently. Others believe the pain and suffering inflicted upon the animals is morally wrong and should not be done, no matter what benefits come from it.
Each year, several million rabbits, mice, and rats, as well as other laboratory animals, are slated to die over the next decade in order to advance the knowledge of science (Coghlan, 2002). Many people have come to view this use of animals as unethical, while others argue that animal testing is the only truly adequate way to test the safety of new products and medicines. In addition to taking the philosophical high ground, examination of why researchers should consider alternatives to animal testing in laboratories show that the arguments against this practice are persuasive and backed up with empirical research. These arguments state that (1) animal testing is often simply an entrenched procedure, which is continued due to tradition and law,
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,
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.