A subject which always raises an argument of strong feelings from both sides is animal testing. I believe that although it may have been necessary in the past, other methods are now available to test drugs and in the future scientists could develop more methods to stop animals being used altogether.
The history of animal testing goes way back to the writings of the Greeks in the fourth and third centuries BCE when two men called Aristotle and Erasistratus performed experiments on live animals for anatomical research. Avenzoar, an Arabic physician in 12th century introduced animal testing as a method of testing surgical procedures before performing them on human patients.
The lives of ten million human diabetics have been saved because of our experiments carried out on dogs with insulin. Dogs also benefited from this too, as insulin can also be used on them. In fact, a third of drugs used by vets are the same as those used by doctors. I personally believe that if there are no other alternatives to animal testing, then and only then, is it acceptable, and only if suffering is minimised in all experiments.
The law in the UK requires that any new drug must be tested on two different species of living mammal. The way experiments by scientists have been controlled by legislation since 1822. For example, the Animals Act of 1986 says that no animal experiment can be carried out if there is an approved alternative. Before testing on an animal the testers need three Home licenses- one for the institution, one for the scientist and one for the project. They must show that the experiment will provide great benefits and also prove there is no alternative to this experiment. Also, random inspections take place and on-site vets are necessary. ...
... middle of paper ...
...ent is committed to finding other research methods but for the foreseeable future the use of ferrets, fish, mice and monkeys seem like they shall still be necessary for some procedures.
On March 11, 2013, Cruelty Free International finally won their 20 year long battle by making a complete ban on marketing of animal-tested cosmetics in all 28 nations in the European Union. Now, not only can no animal testing for cosmetics take place but cosmetics products that have been tested on animals cannot be sold in the European Union.
In conclusion, I agree that animal experiments have brought a lot of good in the past. However we now have the technology and expertise to develop other methods of testing surgical procedures and drugs so that the use of animals can be completely over. It is incumbent on the human race to protect and take care of all species on the planet.
Animal testing has gone back as far as three hundred B.C.E with the Greek physician and philosopher, Aristotle (*). Then there was Galen, a Greek physician, who studied animals in Rome and learned more about medicine, made advancements in understanding anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. To modern society, Galen is referred to as being the father of vivisection. In the twelfth century in Spain, Ibn Zuhr, an Arab physician who made use of animal experimentation that led to testing the effectiveness of surgical procedures, first on animals, and then applying the information to human patients. Though most of his testings were on goats, much of his research went into postmortem autopsies and dissections. (Hajar) (Naik)
Albert Sabin, the developer of the polio vaccine once said, “Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year.” Polio is a deadly disease caused by a virus that spreads from person to person. This infectious disease renders the brain and spinal cord helpless while also ensuring a permanent case of paralysis to the victim. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “…13,000 to 20,000 para-lytic cases were reported annually,” before the 18th century. After the introduction of the polio vaccine, “…a total of 2,525 paralytic cases were reported, compared with 61 in 1965.” This dramatic decrease in the prominence of the polio disease can only be attributed to the success of animal testing. Animal experimentation is used in the research of genetics, drug testing, biology, toxicity testing, cosmetic testing, and many other fields. Despite all of its beneficial traits, animal testing has been wildly controversial over the past decades because of its perceived unethical treatment towards animals. Although animal testing may be deemed unethical by many, it is a form of medical testing that has not only saved lives but has also greatly revolutionized the medical world.
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
Over the past couple of years many companies of these cosmetic products released that they are against animal testing including LUSH Fresh Handmade Cosmetics, The Body Shop, and many others. There are still companies that still do test with animals; over 250 on PETA’s website. A large percent of these are well-known companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Estee Lauder, Procter & Gamble, L’Oreal, and others that may surprise the consumer. The majority of these companies are producing the same products yet using different animal testing results. This causes the number of test subjects to be substantially larger than what is needed. The number of tests being conducted could be reduced if these companies either become anti animal testing or share results with other companies. This idea might seem like a long-shot since sharing information with their competitors seems ridiculous. If you take a step back from looking at each individual company, you’ll see that they are all conducting similar tests with similar products. Sharing results of these tests with other companies potentially selling similar products, with the same ingredients, will result in a large drop in animal testing (Search for Cruelty-Free
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.
Recently, the fight for animal rights and to stop cosmetic testing on animals, has had a huge victory. The EU (European Union) passed a law in March 2013, making it illegal to sell any cosmetics or cosmetics ingredients that have been tested on animals, which in turn, makes companies all across the globe abandon animal testing for cosmetics if they want to sell cosmetics in the European Union ("Cosmetics and Household-Product Animal ...
On the other hand, animal experimentation has brought us so far, and without it, we would not be where we are today. Losing animal experimentation would cause many people to lose jobs, and we would not advance in medical technologies. No one would be guaranteed safety when using a product designed to help them. It would do more harm if we stopped animal experimentation. Plus, it's not only designed to help humans, but it helps animals as well. So technically we are helping both animals and humans. Over all its very important to test on animals to get what we need, in addition there isn't much else scientists can test on.
One word comes to mind when I think of animal testing: cruel. Animal testing has been a subject of debate for many years. While most people think that using animals to test products is a reasonable approach, in reality the outcome does not always show how the products will react on humans, and the animals suffer unnecessarily. The United States needs to ban all animal testing like the European Union did because testing on animals is cruel and animals should not be dying from it.
Although written over 600 years apart from each other, Ki no Tsurayuki’s fictionalized depiction of his rough voyage to Kyoto, Tosa Nikki, has many similar qualities to Matsuo Bashō’s Oku no Hosomichi. Their focus on nature and a general journey, whether or not there is a set goal, creates a similar progression in both accounts based on actual events.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims of experiments for medical research. In The Ethics of Animal Research (2007) both authors state that there have been many medical advances with the development of medicines and treatments as a result of research conducted on animals (para 1). These medical improvements have helped many people be able to enjoy life, but some people still believe that animal research is mean and avoidable .... ... middle of paper ... ...
Is the use of animals in research justified? Should animal experimentation be permitted? Should these animals be liberated? A logical person would say the benefits justify the research. Without animal testing, products would be based on theory. No one would want to use something, which may damage eyes, be poisonous, cancerous, and cause birth defects. Animals used in testing are not from the endangered species list; also many of the types of animals used are killed each year by rat or mouse traps, animal control, exterminators, and animal shelters. Animal testing reaps great benefits such as finding effective drugs to combat disease, improve surgical procedures, and make products safe.
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.
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
The people claim that, animal testing infringes animal’s rights, makes animal suffering in the experiments, and some of animal experiments may never be useful to human beings. This is true, but we cannot stop animal testing. According to the article “Facts about Animal Research” by Cook (2006), the smallpox has disappeared from the earth because scientists get vaccines from cows. Also, the scientists got insulin, which is the only drug, which can control diabetes, from dogs and fish. Many medicines are related to medical animal experiments, we cannot give up medical animal experiments.
Imagine your sweet cat locked in a cage inside a laboratory with other various animals. Millions of animals every year are locked up in labs for testing. Animals are used to test medications, cosmetics, biology lessons, and for medical training. Thousands of mice, rats, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are used for testing. Most of these animals will die in cruel testing experiments. Animal testing is tortures to the animals, an unreliable option for medication, and there are better safer options for testing.