Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The debate over animal testing
Effects of testing on animals
Animal testing alternative methods essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The debate over animal testing
When I first saw the topic for this discussion, I thought to myself “that’s a no-brainer” because my belief comes from a biblical viewpoint of God instructing man to “rule over the animals”. But, while researching this topic extensively over the last week, I will have to admit I could see both sides to this debate. At first, when I was reading how many animals have been killed in order for us to see if drugs are safe I started to sway to the side of NOT testing animals. This, in fact, did get out of hand when it first began in the early 50’s. But, with a little more research I discovered that things have changed drastically since they first started testing. Some of the testing, such as the LD50 testing when it was first being utilized did, in fact, kill a lot of animals needlessly. In the article (found on the NCBI website) titled “Toxicity Tests in Animals: Historical Perspectives and New Opportunities” in the Environews Focus Article, Volume 101, Number 3, August 1993 it states: …show more content…
“The LD50 or acute lethality test is generally performed in rats or rabbits and uses the dose of a chemical at which one-half the test animals can be expected to die.
New approaches to the classic LD50 are currently in practice that incorporates information from preliminary in vitro screening tests. The modified LD50, known as the range limit study, uses 6-10 animals instead of 80-100, as was the case before the mid- 80s. The classic LD50 test is now generally used only to check the potency of highly toxic chemicals, such as when screening for potential chemotherapeutic agents or determining the effective strengths of
pesticides.” So, with that said (and in addition to the ongoing studies being conducted by NBIH to find ways for alternative testing that could be done), I would consider myself on the side of using live, healthy animals for testing experimental drugs and chemicals for possible future used by humans. As far as being the first living animal volunteering to take a new drug whose toxciity had been estimated by a computer model (and I am assuming this question is posing ONLY by a computer model?). To that question, I would have to say a big HELL NO! As of now the research I have done on the computer model testing they are only at a 50% accuracy rate as to whether a drug is lethal or not. I do hope in the future they can make it so computer modeling will be 100% and animals will not have to be used. But then that poses the question “ what happens to all the abandon and overpopulated critters that can become a huge problem?”
...tempt to diffuse violence. To even state that mans use of animals is immoral, and to claim that we have no right over our lives and must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of beings that cannot even think or grasp the concept of morality is ridicules. We would be elevating amoral animals to a moral level that is higher than our own, thus granting animals rights is not only fictional but wrong. In the words of Mat Block “Cows or cats would eat us to if they had a chance. Do not mistake a cats respect for one that is dominate for love, they are killers plain and simple and if you do not believe me ask their friends the birds”
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
In my opinion, I think that if there is an alternative way in getting the same test results, then animal testing should be avoided. If the use of animals is required in order to obtain more knowledge of medicine then I believe that the welfare of the animals should be a priority of the researchers and if the well-being of the subjects is compromised then measures should be taken to correct these mistakes. I am not an advocate of abusing animals in order to advance research, but I do believe that the use of animals in research studies is extremely beneficial. Without the use of animal testing researchers would not have as many answers and solutions to problems that we have, such as sickness.
People have different views to this question, but ultimately multiple tests and studies show that animal testing does not help improve human health. Scientists and researchers have predicted what percent of animal tests are accurate on humans and what percent of human tests are accurate on humans. They predicted that sixty-five percent of animal tests used on humans would be accurate and that seventy-five percent to eighty percent of human-cell line tests used on humans would be accurate ("Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic"). Thousands of people die from animal tested drugs because it is shown that ninety-two percent of animal tested drugs don't work. So, only eight percent do ("Fact! Testing Drugs on Animals Does Not Work to Help Humans"). If people actually looked at the data above, then it could in the end be a winning situation for both humans and animals ("Fact! Testing Drugs on Animals Does Not Work to Help
It should be noted that, animals are metabolically, physiologically, and anatomically unlike from human beings, hence, the tests working on animals can surely prove to be unsuccessful in human beings (Animal Experimentation). Animals react very differently compared to human beings, and therefore, tests done on animals can be hazardous when done on human beings. In addition, even though humans and animals share a number of biological traits, they have biological differences and this is enough reason to question the data obtained from animal experiments and is to be used on humans. It is very wrong to subject animals to cruel procedures in the name of promoting the future human health and this denies them a normal life, yet they are at liberty to yet there is no prove that these tests can work well on human beings. For example, guinea pigs are used in animal experimentation, yet a guinea pig and a human being react very differently to some drugs, for instance penicillin is toxic to a guinea pig, and a cure to human beings. This proves that, any test done on a guinea pig will automatically be unsafe for human beings. Another example is that, drugs that are effective on dogs, or other animals can fail to be effective on human beings. Therefore, it is important to note that, animal testing has its
Animal testing is an immoral, heinous, atrocious act. One should never put an animal before his own life; we are all here on earth due to some strand of evolution or the other, making prejudice and other discriminations (man or not) obsolete and meaningless. Those who would think themselves above another creature are each failures in their own individual way. The rights of animals cannot be questioned, it is an inalienable fact that most do not understand, when given thought that is free of bias and the plague of arrogance, as Arthur Schopenhauer once said: “The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.” In a society as unquestionably advanced as man, a society in which even the consumption of meat is an indulgence and in no way necessary, the duty of treating all life with anything more than a central nervous system is nothing less than a law.
From when you are a baby to when you are an adult animal testing is used in your everyday products. From the Pampers you put on as a baby and the Johnson and Johnson you are washed with. To when you are older the Febreeze, Sunsilk, and Gillette you use.( Companies That do Test on Animals) Animal testing surrounds you in every act of life. “The guess is around 100 million animals are used worldwide in animal testing.” (Animal Rights) Animal testing is rooted from natural curiosity. How the insides of a living organism operate and look is an interesting idea. Because of the fact that dissection of humans was illegal by the Roman Church, animals were the second best option for knowledge of living organisms. (Animal Testing) The debate surrounding the idea of animal testing is a very heated one. There are many alternating opinions to why it is just or not.
There are many positive benefits to Animal Experimentation. It has been said that “not testing new pharmaceutical products on animals is highly dangerous” (HIV and AIDS Information and Resources). Many tests that are done on Animals and then released for the general use are; “Acute toxicity tests consisting of the administration of a single dose of a chemical at a concentration great enough to produce toxic effects and death. An example of such a test is the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) test in which 50 per cent of the subjects in an experimental sample are expected to die. Biological screening tests designed to determine the biological activity of organic compounds in experimental animals. Carcinogenicity tests where animals, usually rodents, are exposed repeatedly during their life to potential carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). Developmental and reproductive toxicity tests consisting of several procedures designed to assess the potential of chemicals to induce miscarriages or to cause infertility or birth defects, usually in rodents and rabbits. Eye and skin irritation tests are designed to determine whether a particular chemical or product will cause irritation on handling or exposure. The notorious Draize test, in which ra...
At this moment, millions of animals know cold cages in laboratories as home, but why? Some of these animals are subjects for medical research purposes, while others are used out of pure curiosity and to test different products. Majority of these animals are used in painful experiments and are left in agony. While many of them die, a few animals survive, but these unfortunate ones wish they could be put out of their misery as well. Although scientists have resources they could use to lower the pain each animal endures and even alternatives of their test subjects, millions of innocent creatures are still suffering. The fact that animals are still used when animal experimentation is avoidable and not necessary makes animal testing unethical.
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
National Institute of Environmental Health Science defines “alternative test methods are test methods that reduce, refine, or replace animal use in research and testing. Reduction, refinement, and replacement are commonly referred to as ‘the 3Rs’”. According to USDA statistic report, 8, 34,453 animals were used in research in the 2014 (2). As per Manguire’s research paper, many alternative methods like in vitro, QSAR, computer modelling are available which can replace the animal usages. Feder mentions in vitro laboratories charges $20,000 to screen the efficacy and safety of a drug, when for the same purpose, it takes more animals, more cost, and longer time. So if researchers, initially, use the alternative methods to check the drug safety and efficacy data, at the end they need only low number of animals to confirm the results. Thus, researchers can reduce the animals’ numbers as possible in their work and save more
The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.
Animal testing is one the most beyond cruelty against animals. It is estimated about 7 million innocent animals are electrocuted, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, killed in the name of science. By private institutions, households products, cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions and scientific centers. From the products we use every day, such as soap, make-up, furniture polish, cleaning products, and perfumes. Over 1 million dogs, cats, primates, sheep, hamsters and guinea pigs are used in labs each year. Of those, over 86,000 are dogs and cat. All companies are most likely to test on animals to make patients feel safe and are more likely to trust medicines if they know they have been tested on animals first (PETA, N.D, page 1). These tests are done only to protect companies from consumer lawsuits. Although it’s not quite true, Humans and animals don’t always react in the same way to drugs. In the UK an estimated 10,000 people are killed or severely disabled every year by unexpected reactions to drugs, all these drugs have passed animal tests. Animal testing is often unpredictable in how products will work on people. Some estimates say up to 92 percent of tests passed on animals failed when tried on humans (Procon.org, 2014, page 1). Animal testing can’t show all the potential uses for a drug. The test results are...
For many years there has been controversy whether or not animals should be tested on between scientists and animal right supporters. It is very debatable if animals should be tested on when a cure for a disease could be found from testing on animals. From my own personal view I have a huge heart for animals, but if we can not find other alternatives, and is possible we can find cures for diseases, then animals may be used for research, but only for medical reasons.
Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.