Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Animal testing ethical issue
Intriguing issue about animal testing
What are the effects of animal testing
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Animal testing ethical issue
She sits alone in a threadbare, chilly, metal cage. Her eyes dart around wondering when the next torture will commence. If the testing fails to kill her, the stress definitely will. Entering is the doctor who plans to perform an eye irritancy test. The rabbit’s eyes will be held open with clips for at least three days if she survives that long (“Frequently Asked Questions”). Similarly, if these procedures would be performed on a human, they would be considered illegal. Yet, scientists continue to make harmless animals suffer incessantly. Annually, countless animals are abused in American test labs; however, alternative practices should be implemented in order to participate in worldwide trade, save innocent lives, and provide more accurate data. According to ProCon.org, in 2010, there were 1,134,693 reported animal testing subjects. However, this statistic fails to tell the whole story. Reported animal test subjects account for only between five and fifteen percent of the total amount of animals used in test labs (“Animal Testing”). However, according to In Defense of Animals, or IDA, the United States federal laws only mandate the number of “warm-blooded vertebrae animals used in science” to be counted and reported. Based on this federal law it is estimated that twenty-eight million animals are used annually in American test labs alone (“Frequently Asked Questions”). In 2007, slightly less than a half million animals were used by the United States Department of Defense. Even with growing evidence showing the dangers of animal testing, America continues to implement these processes. In May 2013, the United States Coast Guard went as far as to ignore a Congressional order to begin to scale back the amount of animal t... ... middle of paper ... ... 2014. "Animal Testing 101." PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2014. "Animal Testing is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint." PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. Cohen, Arna. "Do You Know How Your Mascara is Made?" The Human Society. All Animals Magazine, 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. "Humane Research." The Truth About Vivisection.. In Defense of Animals, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. "In Vitro." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2014. “Frequently Asked Questions." The Truth About Vivisection. In Defense of Animals, n.d. Web. 26 Mar. 2014. Kanter, James. "E.U. Bans Cosmetics With Animal-Tested Ingredients." New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. Owen, Marna. Animal Rights: Noble Cause or Needless Effort? Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century, 2010. Print.
Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals
SUMMARIZE: The article grants information on new models in cosmetics to take the place of animal experimentation. It goes on to talk about how the European Union has now banned using animal-based test for cosmetic reasoning. Pharmaceutical companies and regulatory agencies have been using computer-like tools to assess the toxicity it has for years. The author incorporates information on cosmetics and the outlook on further research. ‘According to experts, combination of laboratory-based with virtual work will be the future of testing and is progressing faster than they expected.” (87 words)
Klein, J. (2012). EU Cosmetics Directive and the ban on animal testing: compliance, challenges, and the GATT as a potential barrier to animal welfare. Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, 253-275.
The use of animals to test cosmetics is introduced in their article as well. The authors quote a vast amount of credible sources from prestigious universities such as Princeton and from well known animal rights group such as PETA. I will use this as my main source of information.
Animal testing is a largely debated and controversial issue. It was first introduced in the United States in the 1920s (Goldberg 85). Since then, there have been many advances in the field of medicine and science. These advances are due largely to the fact that animals are used in experiments and research. Animal testing has given doctors some of their most successful accomplishments. Also, they help researchers discover how to improve long known theories about the human mind and body. Over 40 Nobel Prizes have been given to researchers “whose achievements depended, at least in part, on using laboratory animals” (Trull 64). These animal experiments have helped humans live a better life. Animal testing benefits doctors...
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. They are forcibly given toxic substances and pain relief is never an option. Killing the animals at the end of the testing is common practice since the animals are no longer useful. In one example, rabbits acted as test subjects to test the eye irritation of certain shampoos. The bunnies were restrained; their eyelids forced open with clips for days and the shampoos were applied. Some of the test subjects
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...
Asking just about any animal rights activists on the thoughts of animal testing, it is virtually unquestionable that the majority of them would come across the thought of some of the laws in regards to animals and how animals are “protected” by these laws. Trained scientists and researchers take on the key role of testing on animals in laboratories and facilities throughout the world. Simply in the United States alone, there are very few laws protecting animals from the unnecessary amounts of suffering the researchers force upon them with many broad exceptions. Additionally, in reference to the scientists who perform these tests, the author lists and goes into detail explaining certain associations that infrequently examine and inspect animal testing facilities to ensure that the guidelines and standards are being followed. The author then goes on to state the problems among these organizations that were originally created by the government to assess
"Cosmetics Tests That Use Animals : The Humane Society of the United States." RSS. N.p., n.d.
McKay, Michele. "The Cruelty of Lab Animal Testing." Down to Earth. N.p., 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/issues/used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/.
The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. Sun, Shany. A. The Truth Behind Animal Testing. Young Scientists Journal 5.12 (2012): 835.
Today, millions of animals are being tested for the use of human products, causing them to fall ill and die, leaving them no choice but to be experimented on. Animal abuse can be more than what meets the eye. Specifically, animal testing is a form of animal abuse and usually ends in the death of a harmless animal. Some might say that there is no other way to test products, but due to the harm that is done and our advancements in science, animal testing should not be tolerated. Our advancements in science have enabled us to create other things that we can test on, instead of harming innocent animals.
[online] http://www.drhadwentrust.org/non-animal-research/whats-wrong-with-animal-testing
It still comes as a surprise to me that with all the technology in today’s society, we are still relying on animals for cosmetic research. Some people think that it is acceptable and even justified to test on mere animals rather than risk hurting people. So, for these kinds of people, animal testing makes perfect sense. However, in my opinion, animals are living creatures and have the right to live out their lives as nature intended rather than simply surviving in cages while being poked and prodded with whatever scientists fancy. I think it is depressing and sort of grotesque that I am using products that have been tested on animals that are even commonly bred as our pets. So, I began my research to find out what companies still test on animals, why they do so, and what other alternatives they could use in place of animal testing.