Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation Animal experimentation sends a different message to everyone. The two sides are made of those who think animal testing is beneficial for life and those who think it is unethical and wrong. Those who find these tests to be beneficial are consist of researchers, scientists, and other observers. People and groups who perceive these tests to be cruel and unethical, consist of animal rights activists and organizations that fight for animals rights, such as PETA and ASPCA. Though there are many differences between the two sides, there are also a few similarities. Examples of these similarities include the 3R’s concept and other laws that are fair to both sides. An example of a difference, is the fact that some people think testing leads to medical breakthroughs, while some people think otherwise. While this topic has a variety of points that disagree with each other, they also have points that agree with each other. One of the agreement points is the 3R’s concept. “This principle was ‘invented’ by the English zoologist William M.S. Russell and Rex L. Burch, a microbiologist, and published in 1959 in their book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique” (Kolar 115). The 3Rs stand for replacement, reduction, and refinement. This requires researchers to search for a replacement for living animals. Next, researchers need to find ways to reduce the use of animals in all of their experimenting. Lastly, there is refinement where researchers need to filter their animal use for their experiments. Another point of agreement is the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act puts restrictions on experimenting, transporting, and researching on animals. “The intent of congress in passing this act... ... middle of paper ... ...aid to help society, however, others feel that it hurts society. This controversial topic causes people to have such a wide variety of views on the subject. To make it a bit fairer for everyone, laws and regulations have been passed that favor to all of the sides. These laws consist of ways to limit the number of animals being tested and how they can be tested. Yet these laws still give scientist a lot of leeway on how they test on the animals and what they test on them (Beauchamp 113). Although the opposing sides may agree on most of the regulations that are set, they also disagree on many other subjects. These subjects include whether the tests lead to medical breakthroughs or not and whether or not they are ethical. Lastly, there may be laws to help reduce animal testing, but as long as it is still being done, there will continue to be controversy on the subject.
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
Animal testing is a subject appalled by many people. It is considered to be unethical, inhumane, and downright cruel. One of these reasons for the opposition of animal experimentation is due to the belief shared by many animal activist groups, such as PETA, that animals are kept in appalling living conditions in research facilities. Reasons to believe this are caused by minor instances of laboratories not abiding the law. However, despite these instances the welfare of test animals are preserved by many laws and regulatio...
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...
Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." AV Magazine CXIII (Spring 2005): 14-15. Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2011.
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
One of these claims is that animal testing uses the three R’s in order to make testing more humane. These three R’s are reduction, refinement and replacement, meaning that scientists must attempt to reduce doses administered to test animals, refine experiments to make them more humane and try to replace animals altogether. If this method was always used, animal testing would be humane and ethical, but the three R’s are often neglected because the research results are viewed as being more important than the animals. Another claim that animal testing is ethical, is that animal testing has always been essential to medical breakthroughs. Although animals have served as important models for breakthroughs in drugs and medical procedures in the past, modern technology allows us to use more accurate models for testing such as cell structures. The final claim many people make is that animals are not able to feel pain anyway, so testing them does not matter. If an individual has ever observed a dog even step on a sticker and have it caught in their paw, they have seen an animal whimper and cry while hopping on three legs to try to stop the pain. It is a simple and minuscule pain, but animals feel it, so they will feel any pain involved in animal testing as well. Animals should be replaced in
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
Although not as strictly addressed, there is still a schism when it comes to the matters of experimentation involving animals. Those in opposition of it see it as being against the will of the animal, because animals have no say in the matter. However, through animal experimentation there has been vast medical advances in hospitals and veterinarians , research has led to cures for various diseases that would normally take many more years to cure, and the use of animals is highly ethical considering what could be the alternative, although there is progress being made to change these measures. This is how animal experimentation is of use to society for humans and animals.
...mmonly referred to as “the 3Rs”. The 3Rs concept was first described by William Russell and Rex Burch in their 1959 book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique (Alternative to Animal Testing, 2014, National Institute of Health Sciences)
January 1st, 1959, W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch describes how there should not be a lot of animal testing. Russell and Burch publish “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique,” which introduces the principles of Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement which are called the Three R’s. Reduction explained that people should use fewer animals in experiments. Replacement explained the use of non-animal alternatives over animals whenever possible. Refinement explained how people should use techniques to alleviate or minimize the invasive procedures that could potentially cause pain, suffering or distress, and to the enhancement animal welfare for the animals still used. The testing of animals have been going on for a long time and even some people have tried to help animals have less extreme conditions while being tested on. There are cases when animals are being treated badly, The Huntington Life Science was beating the anim...
Animal testing is a controversial topic, with two main sides of the argument. The side opposing 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 organisms 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 Animal Welfare act was created in 1996 and it 's main purpose was to establish a licensing system for animal dealers and laboratories that use dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, or non-human primates. This was also done in Great Britain in the 1960 's which was used to calm the debate of using animals in science. This act is the only federal law in the United States that is regulating the treatment of animals in research. Some say that this isn 't enough to protect the animals in testing labs. David Favre states that, "This is a federal law of limited purpose and scope." He goes on to say that, it does not deal with all species of animals, as do most state anti-cruelty laws. Instead, the law focuses upon several very specific activities that have been shown in the past to be potential areas of animal abuse and that have a nationwide aspect to them (Favre,
Of the several experiments performed on animals for research purposes, they all appear to affect the animal negatively. Scientists follow the “three R’s”. The “three R’s” are replacement, reduction, and refinement. Scientists are trying to substitute experimental animals with other, more ethical replacements (Monamy 5).
Throughout the years animal rights groups and organizations have frowned upon animal experiments. Animal testing has been thought to be inhumane and cold-hearted to animals. Because of these accusations medical researchers have to suffer threats from individuals and the media. If animal testing weren’t allowed would that be a drawback in advancement in medical research? Animal testing is beneficial to people because these trails lead to improvements in medical research. Animal experiments have led to finding new cures and vaccines to fatal illnesses. Because animal experiments are helpful in making vaccines to prevent these sicknesses, these trails are the reason so many lives are saved. Animal testing is very necessary and useful to people, but animal rights groups believe that these trails doesn’t benefit humanity. According to Ellen Paul, “Breakthroughs in treating injuries, like practically all medical advances, depend upon experimentation on animals.” Animal experiments have given way to many new instruments to fight against diseases like cancer (Paul). For example, mice and other rodents contributed to scientists developing new tools for fighting different forms of cancers (Paul). Animal testing has helped science in many ways, but animal organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) believe that these experiments are cruel to animals. Even though most animals endure some sort of pain during these experiments, the results are very beneficial to people.
For many years now, animals have been used for testing and experimentation. Many organizations like PETA and the ARF (Animal Rescue Foundation) strongly oppose the topic of animals being experimented on. Many people are against animal testing as a whole because not only does it harm animals, but many times they may be killed. There have been many countless years and protests against testing, and they deserved to be heard and listened to. People have begun to realize that not only does animal testing harm and kill animals every year; it has been pretty much useless.