In a nation such as the U.S.A., 26 million innocent animals are being explored for scientific and business screening. Animals such as mice, felines, dogs, and much more are used to develop a medical treatment. For instance, determine how poisonous medication can be, and to make sure of the security in the items for human beings. What takes place in those labs is awful and frightening. Animals are addicted to drugs, anesthetized, get holes drilled into their heads, and have growing tumors that are bigger than their body. These are just a few of a couple of cruelties that are being done there. Con arguments! Obviously, it’s really vicious to the animals however there are other great reasons such as:!! It offers incorrect results and can misinform scientists to overlook the possible treatment and treatments.
The results of the animal screening are being utilized to make sure that specific medicine or cosmetic item would have any side effects on human beings. The defense has actually to be provided when animals are being experimented on, and it costs a lot to produce a synthetic environment for those experiments. !! Pro arguments !! Advocates for animal experiments frequently state that it has actually added to numerous life-saving treatments, however, there is no real proof that animal screening was required for medical development. If we put enough money and resources were into animal-free methods, we could find other solutions !!! They say that there are no other or better alternatives. I can not agree with this.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $10
Today we have developed some other methods that can help and are less expensive than animal testing. For example, there are crash dummies that have internal sensors inside them that can be used. We are also able to make a model out of the human immune system, and it can be used to check if a medical product or vaccine is active or not. These models are known as Modular Immune in Vitro Constructions (MIMIC).!!! Conclusion !! In conclusion, animal testing is bad, both from an ethical and economic point of view. In my opinion, we can only call ourselves real human beings when we become responsible and compassionate towards animals. Medical progress is necessary and good, but not at the cost of innocent lives.
Should we be testing on animals? This topic is important because there is a lot of debate around it. Some people say it’s cruel and inhumane, and that animals have rights too. On the other hand, there are people who say it has a positive outcome because we have discovered new ways to cure fatal diseases and improve our medicines. Currently, people still use animals for medical and cosmetics testing. About 26 million animals are used for testing each year. Animal testing has been going on since about the 1850s, although the treatment of animals has greatly improved throughout the years. People still disagree about whether or not it is ethical.
Some of the ways that animals are being used less for testing include the use of computer programs to see if products can be used on humans, as well as people donating their own skin to be tested on. I think this topic is important because I care about the issue and people still have many strong emotions about it. I have also always wondered how animal testing happens and why people do it. Do animals have rights? Some people say “If an individual is a member of a species that lacks the capacity of free moral judgment, then he or she does not have moral rights. All non-human animal species lack the capacity for free moral judgment. Therefore, non-human animals do not have rights.” The U.S. law allows animals to be burnt, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and even brain-damaged.
Animal testing denotes the use of animals in medical experiments to unveil the potency, safety, toxicity, and viability of developed drugs. Concurrently, the phenomenon also applies to other biological experiments, which utilize animals as specimens. The method incorporates the administration of pharmaceutical compounds into biological systems (test animals). This usually occurs for scientific purposes and medical developments. The process is debatable and has been disputed by animal activists, religious groups, and ethical communities who believe that the trend is immoral and inappropriate since animals cannot be compared with human beings (Panza & Potthast, 2010).
Animal testing usually involves vertebrates like rodents, cats, dogs, birds, and Guinea pigs among others. Since this is a disputable phenomenon, where one can argue for or against the act, this paper supports the aspects of animal testing with bountiful reasons based on its viability in investigating pharmacological compounds. Without animal testing, numerous drugs, which currently help humankind, could have missed. Since human beings cannot commence crude pharmaceutical investigations as test specimens, using test animals is significant in this context. It is advisable to execute scientific investigations elsewhere before introducing them to human beings. It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be an unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to humankind in the realms of drug investigations and scientific discoveries.
With regard to animal testing, debatable questions emerge. In this paper, “Should animal testing be abandoned due to ethical claims surrounding it?” forms the debated question. This question tries to unveil whether it is viable for biologists and medical scientists to cease using animals for experimental investigations. Despite the conventional use of these animals in numerous scientific experiments, it is still debatable their viability and potency. Arguably, the animal testing phenomenon should continue with regard to scientific investigations. The need for efficacy, safety, novelty, and certainty in the realms of drug-use requires thorough investigative experiments, which can only materialize when test animals are incorporated. Firstly, some animal has systems that resemble those of human beings; thus, the ability to use such animals give a broader chance of executing an elaborate experimental investigation.
Using animals as representative of humans is a critical phenomenon when scrutinized critically. There are numerous individuals who have disputed this claim as stated in the research question. The desire to continue with the animal testing phenomenon has infuriated numerous activists who are against it (Panza & Potthast, 2010). Nonetheless, it is evident and appropriate that this phenomenon should continue for further discoveries to be realized. It is questionable how to further medical research will occur and how this will materialize without the use of test animals. This is an impossible phenomenon, which demands those who are arguing against animal testing to reconsider their stands.
Another issue is that human beings cannot be used as experimental animals. The drugs administered to humans must be of some quality, minimized toxicity, viable to use, potent, safe, and effective. This means that they have been investigated and approved by the concerned bodies after scientific investigations. If animal testing will be abandoned, no effective experimentation will occur on biological vessels. Evidently, invitro (using experimental tubes) experimentations are slow and incomprehensive. This means that scientific investigations will delay and sometimes results might not occur. It is vital to consider that animal testing has helped significantly since its inception several decades ago. It has remained a viable, trusted, and considerable experimental design for pharmaceutical products and other scientific investigations.
Harrison & Hester (2006), which identifies the alternative of animal testing, agrees that attaining an alternative to this trend is daunting and minimally achievable. Scientific considerations support this trend since there are limited alternatives to replace the method comprehensively (Harrison & Hester, 2006). Those who are against the animal testing claim that animals are not human beings and equating the two is inconsiderable. Evidently, animals are not exact copies of humans. There are numerous differences noticeable between the two factions. Additionally, they argue that what works best in a guinea pig (an experimental animal), might not exactly perform in humans.
The two factions (humans and test animals) are different hence the assumption that they can emulate each other is misled. Notably, this argument is understandable; however, as the situation stands, it is still appropriate to conduct animal testing to help in research investigations. Humans can hardly be used for crude or undeveloped researches as the ones done with test animals. This means that animal testing is still the best option. According to Schmidt (2001), which discusses the aspects of animal testing, recognizes that it is important to infer that what is inconsumable for test animals is similarly consumable for humans. It is possible to note the adverse effects of drugs with animals, make appropriate changes in the composition of the tested drug, and later emerge with effective, safe, and potent compound worth human utilization.
Watson (2009), which describes the ethical issues related to animal testing, argues that some ethical claims behind the animal testing are baseless when compared to human lives saved daily due to animal testing executed to investigate proper and effective drugs. A mere claim that it is immoral to inject or administer unworthy compounds into an innocent animal while doing research is superfluous. This simply means that those who are against animal testing hardly want researches to be done using animals. This is good and considerable; however, these very people hardly provide viable alternatives that can work better compared to the conventional animal testing provisions. Besides, they are also among those who gain from the findings and results achieved from such investigations.
Evidently, almost all drugs currently used in the world at one point passed through animal testing to unveil their viability, safety, efficacy, toxicity levels, and other viable provisions demanded in this context. Concurrently, it is inappropriate to abandon animal testing as claimed by the activists. The current discoveries on genetics, reproduction, developmental biology, and the study of behaviors among others could have not materialized minus animal testing. Additionally, there are other viable provisions that characterize the phenomenon besides the known pharmaceutical investigations which usually occur using test animals as stipulated before. In these mentioned fields, there are still considerable knowledge gaps that will necessitate the further application of animal testing in order to unveil additional information.
This phenomenon can hardly occur minus animal testing since there will be no specimens for further research. The ethical claims fronted by the mentioned activists should cease from hindering further investigations (Watson, 2009). It is evident that discoveries made from animal testing are numerous and helpful to the human race as indicated earlier. The need for more investigations and application of animal testing will continue to exist following its viability, applicability, and reliability in the aspects of research. The viewpoint that animals equally have moral rights is evident; however, it is disputable in this context since it acts as a hindrance to lucrative investigations and discoveries that are helpful to humankind. Hayhurst (2000), which debates on animal rights, denotes that individuals who perceive animals as having rights are equally accurate in their opinions; nonetheless, they should also consider the merits of animal testing to their lives and beyond.
This relates to the ethical arguments posted with regard to this topic. It forms the center of argument from various people. It is crucial to denote that animal testing has numerous provisions worth noting in varying contexts. This relates to its viability and potency in unveiling the less investigated claims with regard to life. According to various sources, some arguments regarding the aspects of animal testing are invalid and misleading (Hayhurst, 2000). They simply emerge from undue compassion for animals. This contributes to why this paper agrees with the continuity of animal testing. Precisely, its merits surpass its baseless flaws numerous times. It is recommendable to scrutinize these arguments before they derail the realities that encompass a given matter. It is crucial to consider such provisions following their viability in this context.
Additionally, those who argue against the animal testing claim that such animals lack the capacity to express themselves hence can hardly show their pain, dissatisfaction, and suffering. This is a critical claim; however, it is not enough to support the ban against animal testing. Conversely, scientists, medics, and biologists who use such animals apply moral aspects to their undertakings; hence, will barely intend to harm such experimental animals. Since such ethical observations are carried out within the mentioned experimental testing, it is considered to continue with the animal testing phenomenon. Adjusting the conditions of these tests might equally help in upholding ethical demands.
Another argument is that animal testing simplifies and speeds the experimental designs meant to make discoveries. This could have not been achievable minus such experimental trends. Testing developed research products on animals elicit the desired results with promptness. It is daunting and time-consuming to develop therapeutic and diagnostic compounds from human beings. This relates to the aspects of delay claimed earlier. Scientists will not be able to attain their demands on time. This might discourage them from continuing with investigations. Since the use of animal testing provides instant results, its application is widespread, applicable, and viable in numerous contexts. The aspects of safety indicated earlier in these claims equally contribute to the applicability of animal testing. It is improper to execute unsafe experiments or unverified drugs on humans.
The repercussions might be devastating than when it was applied to test animals (Schmidt, 2001). For example, developments and investigations on HIV drugs cannot occur in humans at their initial stages. It is advisable to develop them through animal testing before rendering them usable by humans. It is possible to adjust the composition of the given compound to unveil its viable concentrations. Emerging with instant results supports the application of animal testing and contributes massively in this context. Animal testing is a helpful phenomenon in biological, medical, and other scientific investigations demanding its incorporation. The phenomenon is helpful, viable, and should be embraced despite the opposing opinions. Animal testing helps in developing effective, safe, viable, qualitative, and less toxic drugs. Following the merits of animal testing, its application and advancements should continue while observing ethical concerns.
Example #4 – Animal Testing should be Banned
Animal Testing, a word that we have all heard. Many brands are for it, and many are against it. There are stamps on items that say, “Cruelty-Free,” to show to customers that they didn’t test this product on an animal. Animal Testing has been a topic that is commonly debated over the course of many years. In the past century, a ton of groups has been formed to protest and to prove to the world that animal testing is inhumane, it’s a form of animal abuse, and that it needs to stop. Some of the groups that were created are PETA, The European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), and The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics. The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics has the Leaping Bunny Program, which is were the “We didn’t test this product on animals” logo comes from.
Animal Testing is unethical and is harmful to the animal. Companies usually use animals to test medication and cosmetics. They usually use mice, Syrian hamsters, and rats are used to test medication and diseases to see how the body functions and how it fights the disease that it has. Companies used these animals because they all have a lifespan of at least 2 years, are cheap, and are small so they can test multiple rats at a time. They will force the animal to contract diseases like sepsis, burns, inflammation, stroke, ALS, cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease, and a ton of other diseases. Then, they will test their medication or vaccine on the animal to see if the drug will cure the disease.
There are so many alternatives to testing medication and makeup. There are so many people that are willing to give their bodies to science to test diseases on them. An article was published in The Telegraph on Matthew Speight, a student who is studying Zoology at Oxford, who was paid almost $6,700 to contract Typhoid twice. These companies who test products on animals are extremely greedy. The main reason why they test animals instead of people is that they don’t want to pay the person a salary of at least $9,000 a month. Mice, rats, and hamsters are cheap and affordable, but they don’t live a life. They are trapped in this cage, suffering diseases, and die a painful death with the company knowing that they didn’t live a day outside of that cage. I believe that animal testing should not be completely banned because there have been some instances where the testing has made a contribution to society, but it should be reduced to the very minimum.
Example #5 – The Dangers Of Animal Testing
Many of us are unaware of the sheer number of animals that undergo constant suffering in the name of human vanity. Animal testing was originally introduced in the early 20th century and is still prominent today. It is morally unacceptable to experiment on animals for human purposes. The procedures used in animal testing are cruel and inhumane, nor are they the most reliable source of data; resulting in many mishaps. Moreover, with the perpetual advancements in technology, there are several alternative methods making animal testing unnecessary. If testing cosmetics and drugs on humans are unacceptable, what makes it acceptable to test on animals? Animal testing plays a significant role in scientific discovery to better human health.
One of the main cosmetic tests used is the “Lethal Dose 50” or (LD50). In this test, animals are forced to swallow large amounts of the chemicals being tested to verify the dosage level that will cause death (Corazza, 2017). It is known to cause intense pain and suffering to animals. Chemicals are pumped into an animal’s stomach until it dies. The reason for the intense pain is that it can take days or even weeks before the animal dies. In the rare case where test animals are not killed during the experiment, they are then, “killed either by asphyxiation, breaking of the spinal cord or decapitation” (“Ward: End support of animal testing by using cruelty-free cosmetics”, 2015).
Humans use animals to test drugs and cosmetics but they do not respect the animal enough to provide them with a humane death. Animals are burned, blinded, poisoned, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, electrocuted, and killed, all in the name of science. How is the death of millions of animals fair and humane for results that are not necessarily justified? Additionally, animals also undergo immense pain and trauma in the pursuit of results that are not directly applicable to human use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. has been using animals for testing to conclude that drugs and cosmetics are safe and effective before going into human tests since the 1960s.
Example #6 – Should People Use Animal Tested Cosmetics and Drugs to Protect Themselves from Dangerous Consequences?
It is widely known that animals have long been used as the objects on which people carry out various experiments for their purpose. Currently, people involve animals in various types of researches: in medicine (drugs and injections), in biomedical research, and in the design of cosmetics. Animals are used for economic purposes; however, the peculiarities of these processes are not highlighted for people in open access. There are specific ethical issues concerning animal testing in various types of industries. I believe that the use of animals in the cosmetic industry is unethical and should be prohibited, while animal testing for medical purposes can be allowed, as it often saves human lives, but such testing should be thoroughly regulated by the law.
Pros and cons of animal testing. Despite the fact that animal testing sometimes brings benefits to humanity, the government has not developed unambiguous principles concerning the use of animals in cosmetic researches. That is why Peggs, in her investigation, argued that “more could be done to ensure transparency and to extricate the vested financial interests from the human health benefits” (624). It is due to the fact that each year millions of animals are under the threat of extinction from biomedical experiments, which are conducted for human health benefits. It becomes evident that many animal testing experiments are carried out for human health benefits. This fact forces us to look at the moral side of the issue. Thus, the articulation of an ethical code here is somewhat complicated.
The law which exists today relates only to the use of animals in the creation of drugs and vaccines. But there are no identified principles concerning the use of animals in biomedical researches or in the cosmetic industry, which are widely developed today (“Background of the Issue”). It can be seen that the development and adoption of ethical principles concerning the use of animals as objects in various types of research are of crucial importance. The situation with the cosmetics industry is much more complex and controversial. I believe that the cosmetic industry and biomedical investigations are entirely different concepts because their initial purpose is different. With the help of cosmetics, people try to decorate themselves and improve those traits which are given by nature.
Their health will not deteriorate without it. But for the development of various cosmetic substances, people make animals, primarily rabbits, suffer because of the severe impact of these substances on their bodies. In the majority of cases, animals feel severe pain. Here, it is necessary to think philosophically and place the ecosystem in the center when making any decision. The principle of ecocentrism inspires to treat nature and the ecosystem as equal to humans by their importance (Animal Ethics par. 2-3). People should maintain and support biodiversity which exists on the Earth because it ensures thousands of processes that allow people to live on the planet. It is difficult to justify animal testing in the cosmetic sphere. Alternative methods of testing cosmetics should be developed, as they will be crucial for both animals and people.
Conclusion. As can be seen, animal testing is carried out for various purposes. Some of them can be justified, but others cannot be. The case of animal testing is easier to be judged because of its initial purpose. It is unethical and should not be conducted. Instead, other methods of cosmetic testing should be developed. Animal testing in the healthcare industry is more controversial. It can be provided with the aim to bring benefits to human health and save millions of people. But at the same time, such testing destroys the biodiversity of the planet and is harmful to all living beings. The only way here can be the creation of proper codification which will take into account both sides of the issue and follow it.
Example #7 – Animal Testing is a Cruel and Useless
Nelly, a beagle puppy, had a very rough start since the day she was born. She was used for testing in a laboratory, she was sold for experimentation and was later abandoned. As time went by, she was shot and was left for dead with two other assassinated puppies in a locked cage with little space to breathe or move. They were left on the side of a lonely road, lost, somewhere in Florida. Nelly, the beagle, deserved better. All of the other animals used for testing, deserve better. Animal testing is a major problem around the US and around the world, it needs to be addressed. Preview 3 main points (1 point each = 3 points): animal testing, why is it wrong, how to stop establish Credibility (1 point): As a pet owner, I was interested in the topic so I did further research.
First Main Point “ description of the problem (3 points): Animal testing is cruel and useless, it does not work and only causes harm to hundreds of thousands of harmless animals. A. Subpoint: Animal testing is based on when scientists use animals in studies and experiments in order to prove a theory or see how they react to a chemical or trial. Each year, millions of animals including dogs, cats, monkeys, and mice experience cruelty because of these tests and experiments. Throughout this time, the creatures have to breathe in test substances and run the risk that they are toxic.1. Sub-subpoint: As stated on the BBC website, scientists experiment on animals for basic research, investigating potential treatments for human disease, safety and quality control testing of drugs, and to explore how organisms function. (Katsnelson, 2013)
Most people can agree that animal experimentation is not only outdated but it is immoral and painful as well. However, there are a lot of people who have the wrong perception that this practice is necessary for medicine to keep developing and improving. There are several cases that show what they have to go through and the cruelty tested animals to experiment. For example, in the state of Virginia scientists forgot to remove one of the rats they used in their experiment out of the cage, and took it to a cage washing system. When the cages are washed, they reach temperatures higher than 180 degrees Celsius, causing the rat to suffer and ultimately die. In another experiment, mice were put in a swimming pool, after a specific time interval researchers placed a wire net that drowned them and did not let them get out.
They were underwater for about 30 seconds, to see the effects of underwater trauma. This is an unnecessary practice and torture for the test subjects. And like these, every day, hundreds of thousands of animals, including cats, monkeys, rabbits, and dogs, are forced to suffer in laboratories and undergo burning and uncomfortable experiments. One of the first disagreements over animal testing took place about 60 years ago with a published article about Pepper, a dog that was used as a test subject. Pepper was a farmer’s dog that was kidnapped from his property and was later sold into experimentation. Scientists tried to place an experimental cardiac pacemaker in his body, which led to the dog dying. (Transition point) Furthermore, this is why animal testing is ineffective. Second Main Point – description of the cause or causes (3 points):
Animals are very different from human beings, making them unsuccessful test subjects. Subpoint: There are many variances between animals and people that make them poor models for humans, including anatomic and cellular differences.Sub-subpoint: Several years ago, scientists found a relationship between cancer and tobacco use. There was strong data that backed up this information, so it was believed to be true. Researchers used animals and tested them to see how their bodies would react to the tobacco and whether or not it caused them to have cancer. After testing it frequently times, the tobacco did not seem to produce cancer in the animals, so this theory was rejected. Therefore, warnings regarding the dangers of cigarettes and tobacco were rule as false for many years.
This shows that only a small portion of substances that are known to produce cancer in humans, cause cancer in animals as well, which makes them poor models. There was another medicine that was used to treat arthritis. After being tested in monkeys several times it was found to be safe, therefore could be used in humans. This medicine has now caused more than three hundred and twenty thousand heart attacks and strokes and about one hundred and forty thousand deaths around the world. According to cruelty-free international, out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests. (Against Animal Testing, 2018)
About two years ago in Europe, a drug to treat Parkinson’s disease was tested in animals to see if it was safe. It was ruled to be fine after it was given to four different species of animals, including mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys and they were all fine. However, when given to people it killed one volunteer and caused the other four volunteers to suffer from severe brain damage, ruining their lives forever. (Transition point) So what other methods can be used? Third Main Point “ description of the solution (3 ?? points): There are other alternatives researchers can use instead of animal testing. A. Subpoint: There is no evidence that animal experiments were needed and essential in making major medical advances. If enough money and resources were dedicated to animal-free substitutes, other solutions could be used.
Sub-subpoint: According to www.peta.org, alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues, advanced computer-modeling techniques, and studies with human volunteers. Investigators have created organs on chips that can be used instead of animals. In these chips, human cells are grown to do perform the functions of the organs and the organ system as well as to simulate the structure of them. (Peta, 2018) With the new technology, we now have computer models that can show how diseases progress inside the body and models that mimic human biology. It has been found that these models are an accurate prediction of how medicines will react in humans, without having to use animals which most of the time are unreliable.
Also, there is a method called micro-dosing, that can provide fundamental evidence on how safe an experimental drug is before giving them to humans, especially in large-scale trials. With this way of testing, volunteers are given a very small dose of the medicine and it is only one time. Then, they are monitored closely to see how it reacts in the body and the possible effects of the drug. Mechanized human-patient simulators that are able to breathe, bleed, talk, and even die have shown to be better at teaching students than exercises that implicate using animals. (Transition point) In conclusion, Conclusion “ To Include Summary Statement (1 point): Animal testing is still a huge concern today that harms millions of animals per year; however, other alternatives such as organ-on chips, computer models and micro-dosing can eradicate this problem.
Revisit the Thesis (1 point): The evidence provided shows that animal testing is not effective and that they are poor models for humans. Reviewed Three Main Points (1 point each = 3 points): animal testing, why is it wrong, how to stop standing Statement (5 points)“ try to finish with a BANG So picture yourself in a place you don’t know, locked up without any room for movement. People you do not know come and go every couple of hours and rub things into your skin that burns and makes it bleed. They put substances in your eyes that makes you go blind. Imagine being alone and helpless, with people who are waiting to see what makes you die. These are only a few things animals go through during testing, a change needs to be made. (3) APA Style
Example #8 – Stop Animal Testing
Good morning. I am here today to convince you all to oppose, stop, and disengage from cruel and unnecessary animal testing. Did you know that the lipstick, the eye shadow, and the mascara we use to make ourselves look more attractive have poisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent animals? Did you know that the hairspray, the hair gel, and the perfume we use to make ourselves look smarter have blinded hundreds of thousands of innocent animals? Did you know that even the toothpaste, the shampoo, and the soap we use every day have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent animals? If your answer is ’No’, now is the time for all of us to know it. Animal testing is not the only research to find cures for human diseases, but it is also experimentation to establish the safety of various products such as daily necessities, cosmetic products, and medicines.
To produce a safe product for us, numerous animals have died in laboratories. To ensure our health, numerous animals have been tortured in laboratories. To let us stay away from diseases, numerous animals have been killed. Animals and humans might share much of their DNA, but we are all built differently and we all function differently. There are many problems with the animal to human researching that occurs and makes animal testing ineffective have gone through unbearable aches and pains in laboratories. Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease.
It is not surprising to find that treatments showing ‘promise’ in animals rarely work in humans. Not only are time, money, and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there. 90% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests – whether on safety grounds or because they do not work. Cancer drugs have the lowest success rate (only 5% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by psychiatry drugs (6% success rate), heart drugs (7% success rate), and neurology drugs (8% success rate).
Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide. The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and well-meaning donors on animal experiments at universities and private laboratories, instead of supporting promising clinical, epidemiological, and other non-animal studies that could actually benefit humans. As hard as it is to believe, animal experiments for cosmetics and household products continue even though non-animal tests are widely available. Instead of measuring how long it takes a chemical to burn the cornea of a rabbit’s eye, manufacturers can now drop that chemical onto cornea-like 3D tissue structures produced from human cells.
Likewise, human skin cultures can be grown and purchased for skin irritation testing. We have no right to use animals as the subject for any researches or experimentations just as we do not have the right to experiment on humans without their consent. We should respect the right of all species just as we respect the right of all people. We should pitch in with the work against animal testing and stand up for animal rights, for the animals tortured and yelled behind laboratory doors just as we stand up for our own rights. In conclusion, animal testing is not reliable and is very expensive. Animal testing is inhumane and now that there are alternatives to this, there is no excuse for anyone to still commit this act. I suggest that governments fully ban animal testing so that the world becomes a better and safer place for both animals and humans. I believe that with the changes in technology these days, we are able to find more ways and methods that scientists and researchers can do without involving any cruelties and causing any harm to any creatures.
Example #9 – Animal Testing in Modern World
The number of animals used in research has increased with the advancement of research and development in medical technology. Every year, millions of experimental animals are used all over the world. The pain, distress, and death experienced by these animals during scientific experiments have been a debating issue for a long time. Besides the major concern of ethics, there are few more disadvantages of animal experimentations along with some advantages. While there are more disadvantages than there are advantages, these advantages are what has made us who we are today.
Those in favor of animal testing argue that it has led to many advances in science, increasing the quality of life for both humans and animals. Animal testing aids researchers in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine. In research and testing, animals are subjected to experiments that can include everything from testing new drugs to infecting with diseases, poisoning for toxicity testing, burning skin, causing brain damage, implanting electrodes into the brain, maiming, blinding, and other painful and invasive procedures. It can include protocols that cause severe suffering, such as long-term social isolation, electric shocks, withholding of food and water, or repeated breeding and separating of infants from mothers.
In toxicity testing, animals used in chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies receive the test substance daily, seven days a week, for up to two years with no recovery periods. Many, if not most, animals die before the end of the study. With the exception of chimpanzees, animals who survive their use in research and testing can be killed after the study is completed. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics.
The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 27 cases in 2016. Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s animal research facility, states that “we wouldn’t have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees,” and says that the use of chimps is “our best hope” for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills thousands of Americans annually. If thalidomide had been properly tested on pregnant animals, its potential for causing severe birth defects would have been discovered before the drug became legal for human use.
Example #10 – An Argument Favoring the Use of Animals in Testing and the Benefits IT Has Brought
Animal testing is the procedure of using non-human animals to control changes that may affect biological systems or behaviors in experiments. Because animals and humans have similar properties, the process of animal testing is done for research to benefit humanity, and for that reason, it is permissible to sacrifice animals since it’s done for a good cause. For decades, animal testing has led to several medical advancements for humans. The British Royal Society has released a statement regarding animal research, noting that almost every 20th-century medical achievement relied on the use of animals in some way during the development process.
Dogs, cats, and primates altogether account for less than 0.2% of research animals, Because it cannot be fully replaced by computer simulations or models, The argument is that live testing will continue to be needed. Animals are the closest thing to humans on our planet. If one assumes that human life is more valuable than animal life, then performing experiments on animals makes sense because it offers the chance to explore how the various living systems within a body may react when exposed to a test sample. 97% of research in the UK is done on mice, rats, fish, and birds.
Animals and humans share numerous systems, including the central nervous system, and the data collected can be used to improve products. Because of that, animal testing is once again proved essential. The reason why mice are frequently used in animal research is that their genetic profile is 98% similar to humans. Chimpanzees were popular to use in the past and still are in some areas of the world because their genetic profile is 99% similar to a human. With similar organs, circulatory systems, and reactions to an illness, researchers can look at how animals react and are able to make comfortable predictions about how humans might react. This is why animal testing is important for testing the new diseases humans are being infected with and coming up with medicines that have been tested on animals. According to many claims, some of the items tested are never used. Even if they’re not, they still determine the safety of a product, and whether it should or should not be used by humans. In addition, it plays a major role in curing a lot of diseases. For example, thanks to animal research, primarily in mice, cancer survival rates have continued to rise.
What’s more, Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth also thanks to research in animals. Therefore, animal testing is important because of all the advantages it has provided humans with. Animal testing is important as it increases the eradication of a lot of diseases across the globe. The advantage of animal research is that it puts no human life at risk. Experiments can take place to determine if a product or idea will work as intended. If it does, then it can be tested on humans with a lower risk of a negative outcome. Hence, animal testing plays an essential part in our modern society for all the benefits it provides us with. Although there are a lot of disadvantages to it, the advantages are higher on the scale of pros and cons, for all the reasons mentioned above. However, if all that was supposedly ‘inefficient’, would you rather be the one experimented on instead?
Example #11 – interesting ideas
Can anyone give me good ideas for my topic I came up with 2 reasons why I think animal testing should be banned im stuck on the last one? I need some positive answers.
Answer. Yeah. As a person with a degree in Animal Science, I disagree with your topic and have nothing constructive for you. Here are your options – instead of testing on animals – let’s test on humans! I think it’s sick that people now value animals over humans.
I’m writing an essay for my English class on Animal testing and it must be an argumentative/persuasive essay. Any ideas on what I could include in the essay? Arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ animal testing? please include the websites if possible? thank you so much!
Answer. For: 90% of medical progress would stop if we got rid of animal testing (no new cures for diseases, ever), no new vaccines, no new cosmetic products (ALL soap, shampoo, makeup, etc is tested on animals – the companies that say ‘not tested on animals’ paid another company to do the testing on animals for them), no new processed foods (all tested on animals).
I have to write an essay on animal testing. I know a good bit but I always choke on essay writing because I strive to make it the best. I need help on how to write on both sides of the topic. I’m strictly one-sided on this topic. But I can see how it’s done some good in the medical fields. I overdo it when it comes to things and I’m doing it at the last minute so some serious help would be great. Thank you!
Answer. Make an introduction on what your essay is based on, the fact that you shall be considering both sides, the moral and ethical reasons behind such a controversial topic, and so forth. Then you could carry on to put forwards an argument on how animal testing has helped with regard to medicine, how this has saved many lives in turn and has led to many extraordinary successes in the medical world of science. You could counterstrike this argument by reminding them how it is morally and ethically wrong to conduct such atrocities, and despite the fact they cannot display any emotions whatsoever, it does not mean they are not suffering, some other emotional things like that. Just do a few arguments, counterstriking each one, and then conclude your essay, looking at both sides, and finally concluding on what side you’re on and your reasons why for it.
I am writing an argumentative essay on why animal testing is wrong. I am struggling with my outline. can anyone please help me out with some main or sub-points? This is what my outline consists of so far!
Answer. I think you might do better if you divide animal testing into what is always wrong and what might be acceptable. That allows you to highlight the bad stuff. So: 1. Animal testing is always wrong if
- animals are subjected to pain and suffering
- there are other acceptable alternatives; or
- especially if both exist
2. animal testing might be wrong if it does not come under 1 but
- animals are confined and stressed for the study
- animals are used to retest well-established principles simply to be able to say the company “studied” the issue
3. An outline of animal testing from worst to least offensive. Here you would recap what you’ve said, and explain how some animal testing is simply unacceptable, but how some testing might be not so bad. One example I might give is the long-continuing study by the Gorilla Foundation (they have a web site) of whether gorillas can use sign language to communicate. The gorillas cannot be returned to the wild, they live better than in a zoo, and they seem to enjoy the challenge.
Cite this page
This content was submitted by our community members and reviewed by Essayscollector Team. All content on this page is verified and owned by Essayscollector Team. All comments and user reviews are moderated by Essayscollector Team. In the case of any content-related problem, you can reach us through the report button.