I scan my keycard and walk through a set of double doors, past the examination rooms and a door labeled organic waste. I walk into a complex and intricate maze of dark hallways. The doors read canine testing, swine feeding lab and primate testing environment. Upon looking into the dark rooms; one can make out the cages that once held chimpanzees. The sole purpose of this area is animal experimentation. This area, one of the most secure on the campus, has a separate dock and security cameras at every turn. I have had the opportunity to work in the animal labs of one of the largest corporations in the world. This discourse is my argument on animal experimentation and why the state should allow animal testing for the sake of humanity but should restrict needless suffering to animals.
I had the opportunity to work in classified animal testing labs and to see the animals. The testing that occurred in these labs is all done with the animal’s health and safety in mind. I however, did sign a secrecy contract and thus am unable to reveal the name of the company or the testing that occurs. Animals in this writing do not include humans but all other species in the kingdom Animalia.
The question occurs on what the state’s policy should be on animal testing? Should complete freedom be given or should animals not be tested on? In this writing, I will argue that the state’s policy should be that researchers be given free reign as long as they advance science. This writing works to propose a policy on animal testing that should be employed by our state. The history and the current opinions will be discussed to give context to the argument. I will explain the policy of utilitarianism and how my personal view is similar to that of a utilitaria...
... middle of paper ...
...e that animals do have the right to be treated ethically. This is what the three R’s are for. Humans however, need to continue to progress and need to think about the safety of our species. It is for this that an ‘on balance justification’ need be made where humans can maximize the utility and progress of our species.
Works Cited
Notes
DeGrazia, David. "On the Ethics of Animal Research." In Principles of Health Care Research, by David DeGrazia, 689-695. New York: Wiley, 2007.
Hills, Alison. "Do animals have right?" In Chapter 13: Science and Suffering, by Alison Hills, 199-218. Cambridge: Icon, 2005.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Research Involving Animals. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2005.
Wolff, Jonathan. "Ethics and Public Policy." In Chapter1: Scienctific Experiments on Animals, by Jonathan Wolff, 11-36. London: Routledge, 2011.
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)
Zak, Steven. “Ethics and Animals.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2007
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...
Mulkeen, Declan and Carter, Simon. “When Should Animals Suffer?” Times Higher Education Supplement 1437 (5/26/2000): p34
Philips, Trevor. "Human Self-Interest Will Ensure That Animal Experimentation Continues." The Independent (25 Apr. 1998). Rpt. in Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.
"Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary." The Ethics of Medical Testing. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from "Animal Experiments: Overview." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
For decades, using animals for laboratory testing has been a controversial issue. Typically, animal testing is used to test cosmetics and medicines that may be used on humans. Scientists tend to use animals for testing when there’s a chance that the chemicals used in the substances could cause harm to the person using them. It is estimated that more than 115 million animals world-wide are used in lab experiments every year. Since only a small proportion of countries collect and publish data concerning animal use for research, the exact number is unknown. The question is whether the use of experimenting with animals is morally right or wrong. Most people would agree that of course it is wrong. If these heinous acts were committed outside labs,
The morals of a modern society entails protections for all species of life. Humans do not have the nature to not inflict harm on innocent animals around the world.Animal research is unjust and neglectful to species in every animal kingdom.The animal kingdom has been disturbed since men step foot on this earth. Some people are so selfish that the only thing that look over is about their own selves and not other humans or living things in this world. Animal rights is a big thing to some people and to others it not this paper talks about how it's cruel to research on animals, how research doesn't improve health,and how it's not regulated.
Millions of animals are used to test consumer products, but they also become victims to 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 i...
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing 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 organism 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 argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Approximately two to four million animals have been used in safety tests. Safety tests are conducted with a wide range of chemicals and products, including drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, and packing materials. This raises issues such as the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals, thus harming them, for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
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....
Orlans, F. Barbara. In the Name of Science:Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York: Oxford UP: Oxford UP, 1993.