Research Paper Animal Experimentation Essay

I Introduction

Thesis Statement: Animal testing is a problematic issue in modern society. Some people argue that carnal testing should be kept due to medical benefits and research survey comfortss. However. I think carnal experimentation should be banned by rebuting supporters’ statements.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

II Body
A. Opposing statement 1
Animal experimentations are conducted for human wellness.
Rebuttal to this statement:

Animal proving can do serious jobs sing to human wellness. a. The consequences of carnal experimentation are frequently inconclusive and can non be accurately applied to human. B. Animal drug proving causes a batch of unsafe side effects.

B. Opposing statement 2
Animal experimentation is critical for research intents.
Rebuttal to this statement:
Ethnics jobs: Are humans excessively selfish?
a. Animal testing can be highly barbarous and inhumane.
B. Examples to exemplify the cruelly experiments conducted on animate beings.
c. Animals deserve the equal rights as worlds.

C. Opposing statement 3
There are no effectual options to carnal experimentation.
Rebuttal to this statement:
The facts of efficient non-animal methods and relevant benefits.
a. Examples of successful alternate methods.
B. Lists of possible engineering as alternate methods.
c. The benefits of non-animal methods.

III Conclusion
Animal Testing should be banned due to its cruelty. moral issues and the being of effectual alternate methods.

Should Animal Experimentation Be Abandon?

Animal Experimentation. besides known as carnal testing. is the usage of animate beings to carry on experiments or do research in the research lab. The figure of animate beings used in experiments increased dramatically after World War II. Nowadays. carnal experimentation is widely used in many countries such as medical research. behaviour survey. and drug trials. It is estimated that scientists in America utilize more than 15 million animate beings each twelvemonth in their research. Besides. carnal research and testing is used in about 10 % of all biomedical research. ( “Animal experimentation” . 2011. parity. 4 ) While some people insist carnal experimentation is necessary for societal advancement due to its alone parts to human wellness and scientific researches. oppositions of carnal research argue that it is barbarous. immoral. and unneeded.

As a affair of fact. carnal experimentation has been a contention issue for a really long clip. At the same clip. there are an increasing figure of ordinances which restrict carnal testing to some extent in order to protect animals’ rights. From my position. carnal experimentation should be abandoned because of its cold cruelty. moral issues. and the being of possible options. The most common statements back uping carnal experimentation can be refuted and shown to be unneeded injury to animate beings. There are many statements to back up carnal experimentation. Supporters of carnal proving assert carnal experimentations are good for human wellness and vital for research intents. Besides. protagonists tend to believe that there are no effectual options for carnal experimentation.

One of the most common sentiments protagonists of carnal experimentation clasp is that a batch of carnal experimentations are conducted for human wellness. They assert carnal testing is critical for drug development. the safety of decorative merchandises. and intervention for diseases. For case. Carl Cohen ( 2005 ) . a professor of doctrine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. argues that vaccinums for diseases such as infantile paralysis and malaria could non hold been developed without carnal testing ( parity. 1 ) . There is no denying that worlds did profit a batch from carnal experimentations. People pattern on Canis familiariss foremost to larn how to execute surgery successfully. prove the toxicity of ingredients of shampoo on mice to guarantee the safety of decorative merchandises. and analyze the septic Pan troglodytess to analyze the virus effects.

These actions seem to be sensible. However. there are besides plentifulness of jobs of carnal experimentation associated with human wellness are ignored by protagonists. The consequences of carnal proving are frequently inconclusive and can non be accurately applied to human. “Many of the drugs approved through animate being experimentation have proven unsafe to humans” ( Thomas. 2008. parity. 3 ) . The interior construction of human organic structure is rather different from animals’ . In fact. carnal experimentation consequences can non foretell many common life baleful side effects of new merchandises like drugs and cosmetics. Animal testing could be the ground that many so called “safety products” drugs which work absolutely on animate beings would do so many unsafe side effects on human organic structure. More earnestly. it is possible for worlds to endure from allergic reactions. some blood upsets. skin lesions and many cardinal nervous system effects that can non be demonstrated by animate being theoretical accounts ( Singer. 2006 ) . Most medicines are derived from one large contradiction: Our authorities demands that we test all medicines on animate beings prior to go oning to human tests. and it admits that using carnal informations to worlds is a “leap of religion. ”

However. carnal drug proving can non vouch all the medicines would use to worlds. Still. many human diseases go uncured. Besides human wellness position. protagonists argue it is necessary to carry on research through carnal experimentation. The history of carnal experimentation can be traced back a really early clip. The earliest mentions to animal proving are found in the Hagiographas of the Greeks in the 2nd and 4th centuries BCE ( “History of nonhuman carnal research. ” 1984 ) . The accomplishments of carnal proving research can non be ignored. For illustration. the Roman physician Galen dissected hogs and apes to show that venas carry blood. non air as people antecedently thought.

In the early 1600’s English physician William Harvey dissected legion types of animate beings. including toads and fish. to demo how blood circulates the organic structure. During the 1800s. scientists used animate beings to analyze the function of micro-organisms in doing disease ( Gilland. 2002 ) . Scientists take advantage of the animals’ biological similarity to worlds to derive advanced biological science and behaviour cognition. Furthermore. scientists can make controlled environments for animate beings ( modulating their diet. temperature. and other factors ) in a manner that would be hard for human research topics. Evidence shows the research advancement benefits from carnal experimentation. It can non be denied that the carnal experimentation plays a important function in research.

However. as the graduated table of carnal experimentations increasing drastically over old ages. there are more animal-rights motions and more moralss inquiries have come to the top. Oppositions of carnal experimentation see it is unethical due to grounds such as it is barbarous and cold. and it violates animals’ rights. First. carnal testing is ever merciless. The status of where animate beings are kept within research lab could be hapless. and animate beings are frequently exposed to harmful chemicals to see the consequences. In 1997. people for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filmed staff inside Huntingdon Life Sciences ( HLS ) in the UK. The staff was hitting puppies. shouting at them. and taking blood samples from the Canis familiariss. ( “It’s A Dog’s Life. ”2005 ) . Another illustration is the archpriest experiments conducted at the University of Cambridge in 2002.

The monkeys in research lab had undergone surgery to bring on a shot. and were left entirely after the process for 15 hours overnight. They were merely given nutrient and H2O for two hours a twenty-four hours so that research workers can break detect their reactions in different state of affairss ( Sandra. 2005 ) . The highly hurting and agony caused by animate being testing has become a serious moralss issue. The 2nd problematic moralss issue is sing to animals’ rights. Peoples have started to inquire whether animate beings deserve the same rights as worlds. Harmonizing to human’s basic rights. a individual may non be killed. cruelly treated. intimidated. or imprisoned for no good ground. Put another manner. people should be able to populate in their ain demands and penchants. What about animate beings? Do they merit the basic respects like worlds? There is no uncertainty that animate beings experience life as worlds do. Animals can experience hurting and fright. and they would be despairing in hard state of affairss.

It is true that animate beings do non hold the same abilities as worlds. They can non talk. compose or invent things. but neither can some worlds. Can we strip the rights of those worlds who lack these abilities? Do we state handicapped worlds have no built-in value and rights? Surely non. because their lives still has value to them. As philosopher Tom Regan ( 1985 ) has said in his statement for carnal rights: we are each of us the sing topic of a life. a witting animal holding an single public assistance that has importance to us whatever our utility to others… animate beings excessively must be viewed as the sing topics of a life. with built-in value of their ain ( p. 13 ) .

It is non justifiable to harm animals’ lives for the benefits of worlds. Worlds tend to see themselves as the most of import and valuable species on Earth. However. this sentiment is excessively egoistic and unmoral. Millions of species are all populating on this planet. and they all deserve the self-respect to populate. Even though there is no uncertainty that better research advancement would be gained from carnal proving. we human can non take the benefits from the bad luck of other species.

We are portion of this planet. and we have the duty to protect ecological balance. non to harm it. Supporters of carnal experimentation are besides cognizant of the defects and ethical jobs of carnal experimentation. but they assert there are no effectual options to animal proving. As a affair of fact. with the development of engineering. there are many more possibilities to carry on experimentations without animate beings. Thankss to modern engineering. more and more non-animal research is being used now all over the universe. For illustration. Pharmagene Laboratories is the first company to utilize lone human tissues and sophisticated computing machine engineering for the intent of drug development and testing. Peoples in Pharmagene usage sophisticated scanning devices to analyse interior construction of homo.

With tools from biochemistry. analytical pharmacological medicine. and molecular biological science. Pharmagene is able to analyze human cistrons and drug effects on the proteins they make. They have made great accomplishments in the field of non-animal experimentation. Besides. the scientists in Pharmagene believe that the survey procedure would be much more efficient with human tissues alternatively of animals’ . They besides province there would be lower hazard associated with non-animal experimentation. ( Coghlan. 1996 ) . As I pointed out before. carnal testing can be inconclusive and inaccurate. Besides. it is normally expensive to make experiments on animate beings. On the contrary. non-animal methods frequently take less clip and cost less to carry on. Effective. low-cost. and humanist research methods include sophisticated in vitro. genomic. and computer-modeling techniques every bit good as surveies of human populations. voluntaries. and patients. Why do we hold to carry on the cruel. immoral animate being proving which cost us money and attempt? Peoples can utilize these effectual options alternatively.

Today. carnal experimentations are still used widespread in countries of biological science. behaviour survey. medical research. and drug testing. Although protagonists of carnal experimentations argue that carnal testing is good for human wellness. critical for research intents. there are strong grounds screening that carnal experimentation might non be necessary. Animal experimentation can do a batch of unsafe side effects in drug testing. Furthermore. People’s diseases can non be accurately treated through carnal experimentation. Besides. there are serious moral issues associated with carnal proving. and we should non take the benefits from the bad luck of other species. Peoples need to be cognizant of the disadvantages of carnal testing and seek for better options. Non-animal methods frequently take less clip and cost less to carry on. With the development of engineering. there would be more and more effectual options to animal proving. Due to the assorted disadvantages of carnal experimentation. we ought to abandon carnal testing and focal point on better solutions. I believe worlds can profit more from non-animal experimentations

Animal Experimentation. ( 2011 ) . Hoboken. New jersey: Wiley.
Balls. M. Statement on the Application of the Epiderm™ Human Skin Model for Skin Corrosivity Testing. New York. New york: Metropolitan. Cohen. C. ( 2001 ) . The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham. Mendelevium: Rowman. Coghlan. A. ( 1996 ) . Pioneers Cut Out Animal Testing. New Scientist. 9. 31-33. Deborah. L. ( 2009 ) . Novel Multicellular Organotypic Models of Normal and Malignant Breast: Tools for Dissecting the Role of Microenvironmen in Breast Cancer Progression. Breast Cancer Research. 11. p. 3. Festing. S. ( 2008 ) . Animal Research—a Defense. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. Newstatesman. con/life-and-society/2008/03/animal-rights-debate. Gilland. T. ( 2002 ) . Animal Experiment: Good or Bad? London: Hodder. It’s a Dog’s Life. ( 2005 ) . Small World Productions. pp. 54. 56. Lab Primate Advocacy Group. ( 1984 ) . History of nonhuman carnal Research. Boston. MA: Bedford.

Regan. T. ( 1985 ) . The Case for animate being rights. New York: Basil Blackwell. Sandra. L. ( 2005 ) . Lab monkeys in trials. The Grardian. p. R3. Singer. P. ( 2006 ) . In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Malden. Ma: Blackwell.

Thomas. P. ( 2008 ) . Animal Testing—Dangerous to Human Health. Retrieved From hypertext transfer protocol: //www. newstatesman/life-and-society/2008/animal-right