Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Should animals be used for research
Should animals be used for research
Benefits of animal testing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Should animals be used for research
Should animals be used for medical research?
1. Introduction
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....
... middle of paper ...
...udes Toward Animal Use. Anthrozoös, 5, 32-39.
Hills, A. M. (1995). Empathy and belief in the mental experience of animals. Reviews and research reports. Anthrozoös, 8, 132-142.
Herzog, H. A. (1993). “The movement is my life”: The psychology of animal rights activism. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 103-119.
Pifer, L., Shimizu, K., & Pifer, R. (1994). Public attitudes toward public research: Some international
comparisons. Society & Animals, 2, 95-113
Knight, S. E., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., & Nunkoosing, K.. (2003). The effect of belief in animal mind and other individual differences on attitudes toward animal use.
Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. London, UK: Methuen
Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Roth F, Bonfoh B, de SD, et al. Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:527–531
“Even if animal testing produced the cure for Aids, we’d be against it” This rhetoric notion was stated by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and summarizes the fanatical doctrine animal rights activists preach to their followings. These activists preach a doctrine of hate calling for the end of all meat eating, wearing of fur, use of animals in experiments regardless if they are beneficial or not, and even push for the end of all pets as we know of it. Howard Lyman author of “Mad Cowboy” has not only aligns himself with this rambunctious group of man haters, but supports their nazi like doctrine in his book. On further review of mad cowboy one must dig deep to find any useful knowledge, and when you do find it, one sees that the knowledge has been twisted to fit Lyman’s own agenda. Long dead are the days when knowledge was first gathered then conclusions derived, now statistics and data is twisted and molded to grant validity to ones own agenda.
In the article “A change of heart about animals” author Jeremy Rifkin uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade humanity in a desperate attempt to at the very least have empathy for “our fellow creatures” on account of the numerous research done in pursuit of animal rights. Rifkin explains here that animals are more like us than we imagined, that we are not the only creatures that experience complex emotions, and that we are not the only ones who deserve empathy.
In a society dominated by visual activity, it is not uncommon to be faced with images meant to render a specific reaction. It is the intention of industries to provoke a reaction whether it is mental, emotional, or physical and specifically through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Both images displayed, the first by the PETA organization or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the other by UNESCO or the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization share similar tactics in which they influence their audience’s reaction. As an American animal rights organization that campaigns for the “ethical treatment of animals”, PETA’s most dominant mode of persuasion is especially exemplified by the use of pathos. In an attempt to induce sympathy from the audience, specifically from animal rights advocates, PETA uses the representation of a woman with the pattern of a tiger’s stripes.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
This is important because understanding the way in which this happens, attitudes towards animal testing, are formed and how they spread will likely have an impact on public policy on animal welfare and animal rights activism. The information presented and the results will justify my view on animal testing and why it should be banned from scientific reasonings. (75 words)
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
Why do we have to use animals for research? Many humans and animals get the same illnesses because animals are biologically similar to humans. Animals have a shorter life cycle than humans and as a result, they can be studied throughout their whole life span or across several generations. According to information from the Office of Technology Assessment, it is estimated that between 17 and 23 million animals are used in research each year. Approximately 95% of these animals are rats and mice specifically bred for research and 4.25% of these animals include rabbits, guinea pigs, sheep, fish, frogs, insects, and other species. Most importantly, only 0.75% of the animals in research are cats, dogs, and primates. Major medical advances have been made because of the research of these animals. (Animal Research 2013)
In this argumentative essay written by Dr. Ron Kline a pediatrician who wrote his essay titled “A Scientist: I am the enemy”. The article gives an insight on how animal research has helped many people and shine a light on the benefits of animal research. Ron Kline is the director of bone marrow transplants at the University of Louisville. Furthermore, the essay explains his thoughts and his own reasons for his love of medical research. In addition, the essay include the opposing side of the argument which has a lot feedback from activist groups that think that animal research is horrible.
Linzey, Andrew. Introduction. Animals on the Agenda. Ed. A. Linzey et al. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998.
The issue that has been raging for over many years is if animals should be owned by humans. This mainly concerns zoos, private owners and other facilities that hold animals. The public saw this issue and wanted to address it. Big organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are the ones who are mainly active in this dilemma. The people who are also interested in this issue are those who fit into the category of any side of the argument. Other people and organizations, who are interested in this topic, are zoos or animal wildlife parks. People of the public were interested in this issue, which is why there so many organizations and debates for the issue of animal cruelty. Zoos also promoted interest for this issue in the public, due to the high amount of visitors. There are two main viewpoints in this argument and one in the middle of both. One side is for animal being kept in zoos, facilities or owned by humans in general. The other side argues that animals should not be kept by anyone because they are nobody’s to own. The middle ground between the two points of view believes that only some people and facilities are allowed to take care of animals (basically those who are qualified).
Arluke, A. (1994). Managing emotions in an animal shelter (pp. 145-165). Animals and human society.
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
A. A. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Janelle Rohr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1989.
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.
21 Sept. 2011. Freeman, Carrie. The Packwood. " Framing Animal Rights in the "Go Veg" Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations.