More handpicked essays just for you.
Disadvantages of animal experimentations
Why is animal experimentation with laboratory animals a controversial issue
Why is using animals for research experiments wrong
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A Look at the Other Side of a Heated Debate Animal experimentation has always been a highly debated topic. Many have argued for the use of animal experimentation claiming that animal experimentation is the only possible way to find medical treatments to preserve human life. However, animal rights activists have argued that animal experimentation is futile and that it is unethical to use the life of an animal for experimentation without the animal’s consent. Although both sides of the debated issue present reasonable opinions, the use of animals for experimentation is the most effective form scientists have in order to find medical breakthroughs. In Jane Goodall’s essay “A Question of Ethics,” she argues that animals should not be experimented on because there are more advanced alternatives than using animal lives. In Goodall’s defence, we should not support activities …show more content…
Furthermore, she recommends that scientists explore other alternatives, such as, computer simulations and tests on tissue and cells. Although Goodall sheds light on great alternatives and uses great statistics, Goodall’s essay comes off as too preachy and fails to realize that if it were as simple as to use a computer simulation to cure a drug, of course there would be no need for animals such as primates to be tested on. Although it may sound unsympathetic, in order to find cures and medical discoveries there needs to be trial and error and, unfortunately, in this instance we have to use primates and other animals for research. Goodall believes that animals are used for no reason, however, animals are not necessarily used for no reason because scientists are trying rigorously to find solutions through each trial in order to treat conditions such as cancer and
Rebecca Skloot’s novel, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, depicts the violation of medical ethics from the patient and researcher perspectives specifically when race, poverty, and lack of medical education are factors. The novel takes place in the southern United States in 1951. Henrietta Lacks is born in a poor rural town, Clover, but eventually moves to urban Turner Station. She was diagnosed and treated for cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins hospital where cells was unknowingly taken from her and used for scientific research. Rebecca Skloot describes this when she writes, “But first—though no one had told Henrietta that TeLinde was collecting sample or asked she wanted to be a donor—Wharton picked up a sharp knife and shaved two dime-sized pieces of tissue from Henrietta's cervix: one from her tumor, and one from the healthy cervical tissue nearby. Then he placed the samples in a glass dish” (33). The simple act of taking cells, which the physicians did not even think twice about, caused decades
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is a non-fictional novel dedicated to describing the life and experiences of a woman by the name of Henrietta Lacks who’s cervical cells became famous for a multitude of reasons. Henrietta was an African American woman born in the 1920’s who developed an aggressive form of cervical cancer and was treated by doctors at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Her infamous story began when doctors began treating Henrietta with radium and took tissue samples from her cervix without her knowing. Cancer researchers began testing Henrietta’s cells (labeled HeLa) and found that they, unlike many other human cells, multiplied at rapid rates and almost seemed to be “immortal” or never-ending. These cells were shared, sold, and researched
Throughout the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” the author, Rebecca Skloot, constantly depicts two very different sides to the story of Henrietta Lacks. On one hand, there is the Lacks family; who have fought for the compensation for the work that HeLa cells have done, especially since they were essentially taken from Henrietta and used without her informed consent. On the other hand, there is the scientific community; without the taking of HeLa cells, the understanding of chemotherapy and tissue culturing, and a vaccine for polio, would not be possible today. Although the ethical circumstances for the taking and use of HeLa cells weren’t necessarily just, the use of the cells were more importantly highly impactful in the scientific
What is privacy? Well, it’s the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. In terms of information, it is the right to have some control over how one’s own personal information is collected and used. This is a right that has been inherently protected by the U.S Constitution, agreed upon by the Supreme Court, and yet, issues around this very topic arise every day. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the author Rebecca Skloot, addresses this issue in her story of the women behind the infamous HeLa cells. Her story shows that although privacy is a right that is inherently protected by the law, situations of injustice can still occur. Examples of this in the book include when Henrietta’s cells were given to Dr. Gey without any consent from Day, the situation in which Mr. Golde’s spleen was sold without his permission, as well as when the Lacks family were recontacted and mislead about the reasons they were tested years after Henrietta’s death.
STATEMENT OF USE: “Although many key questions can still only be answered by animal studies, non-animal methods now account for 90% of medical research and include mathematical and computer models, advanced tissue and cell cultures, and scanning technology.” This information will take a great stance in my paper once more research is done about it. Animals do not need to be used to understand biomedical medicine and knowledge. They are not models for anything society taunts them to be. (76
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a heavily debated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains uncertain. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity.
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...
Every year, millions of animals are injured or killed in scientific experiments across the world. Those in favor of animal experimentation say they’re taking animals’ lives to save humans. But is it really necessary to subject animals to torturous conditions or painful experiments in the name of science? Is it ethical to destroy an animal’s life while simply testing lipstick or shampoo? Animal experimentation, like many of the issues we face today, is difficult to argue against, and just as hard to support, but it is necessary to continue this experimentation in order to advance human knowledge and to help save human lives.
For thousands of years scientist have been performing vivisections on animals to find information on new chemicals, drugs, and vaccines. Vivisection is when scientist perform dissections among living animals mostly for the purpose of educating and retrieving information. Experimenting on animals has become the tool that has helped us comprehend the body functions of an animal and how a disease transforms the bodily functions, but over the years it’s caused animal rights activists to question the usefulness and the sincerity of using animals for this purpose. Although animal research has been helpful in the past, it is morally wrong in the sense that experimenting on animals is not the only way to collect information. There are other alternatives
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.
For years now people have been using animal experimentation to create new ways to help save the human race. There are people who believe that it does help, and that it is necessary to continue, while others oppose and want to fight for the elimination of animal experimentation. Scientists fight for the cures needed to help man kind, but struggle to do so as people fight against their work in progress. But as Jennifer A. Hurley stated, “History has already shown that animal experimentation is not essential to medical progress.” Stuart W.G. Derbyshire believes “The best hopes to treat or cure any number of diseases all rely in the current animal experiments.” Both sides have evidence that can allow both to be proven correct. But there are negative arguments that can prove the other wise. The real question to ask is, Does animal experimentation really help advance medical research?
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. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.
Ethical theories are a way of finding solutions to ethical dilemmas using moral reasoning or moral character. The overall classification of ethical theories involves finding a resolution to ethical problems that are not necessarily answered by laws or principles already in place but that achieve justice and allow for individual rights. There are many different ethical theories and each takes a different approach as to the process in which they find a resolution. Ethical actions are those that increase prosperity, but ethics in business is not only focused on actions, it can also involve consequences of actions and a person’s own moral character.
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.