Animal Experimentation, Ethics, And Ethics

Animal activists and scientists experience ongoing conflict between animal experimentation and biomedical ethics. Animal testing is one of the oldest methods of experimentation. In the 1980s, the animal rights movement and the argument surrounding the ethics came under fire. As a result of this movement, the experimental procedures became public, giving more incentive to the activists and momentum to their cause. The ethics of animal experimentation come into question in everything from beauty products to the food and vitamins that are sent to consumers worldwide. However, because of the industries ' involvement within animal experimentation, many consumers do not know how these products they are purchasing are tested. Although the ethics of experimentation have come into question, new ideas of experimentation have progressed. Within the biomedical field, new testing methods for both medicine and beauty products have evolved. Because of this new technology, activists against animal experimentation argue that the necessity of animal experimentation is unneeded. In contrast, scientists argue it is not outdated. Despite the progress made by the activists many scientists still believe that animal experimentation will be needed. Although animal testing may have served as a useful tool in the past, it no longer is as accurate as the new technology and research methods from the 21st century.

Cohen argues that humans may morally use animals for biomedical research, the study of biological processes and disease, because animals lack rights. He defines rights as moral claims that one human can hold against another, which are bound in both law as well as in comprehension of right and wrong. As animals lack self-conscious placement in a higher ethical order with the ability to weigh needs of self against the needs of others, they therefore lack the ability to have rights. (Cohen 1986: p. 215) To support the morality of animal research, I will show how it has led to many successful treatments of disease in humans, due to the common physiology that we share with other animals. Furthermore, I will argue that the pain caused on research

The animal experimentation is very difficult issue with a lot of people feeling very strongly of it, we are use the animals for the experimentation in different way, one of most big problem is for test the cosmetics, the images of animals with things put in their eyes for so we are able to look a bit better make many people very angry. Is it necessary?

Animal testing is also known as animal experimentation is the act of testing drugs, chemicals, cosmetics and acid on animals such as; dogs, cats, rats, mice, ferrets, hamsters and monkeys for many purposes. Today I will be focusing on cosmetics. Cosmetic companies create makeup, lipstick, foundation, blush, highlighters etc. All of these products are tested on animals before use on humans and I believe that this is wrong and should be banned in all countries.

The subject of animal testing when it comes to religion is exceedingly debated. As long as there is no unnecessary pain inflicted onto the animals and there is a real possibility of benefit to human beings, then Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teaching allows for animal experimentation. On the other hand, many people believe that since religious traditions, such as Hindu or Buddashism, tell us to be merciful to animals, we should not cause them suffering by experimenting on them.

Controversy is a disagreement that usually occurs when one or both sides has a strong disagreement towards another sides opinion. Common controversial topics can range from issues such as abortion to issues such as marriage equality; whichever the case, we encounter controversial discussions daily. One topic that I tend to encounter more so than others is the discussion regarding animal experimentation. I live as a vegetarian, a lifestyle I have been living for approximately 2 years, and due to this identity I tend to find myself surrounded by other friends who live the vegetarianism or veganism lifestyle. Most of our conversation topics revolve around animal rights and where people should “draw the line” so to speak, in our society. So, for

The aim of this presentation is to highlight why animals research exists in the field of psychobiology and psychology. Firstly, an explanation of the benefits of conducting animal research, with research examples targeted at the central nervous system (CNS). Then, the focus is to highlight the ethical issues surrounding animal research, such as cruelty to animals and their rights. Thirdly we will be looking at the extent to which animal research has increased our understanding of human psychology. This is then followed by a brief summary of the main points covered in the presentation.

Animals have been treated immorally since the beginning of time, this is shown by hunting, farming, trapping, testing of products and biomedical research etc. As humans, majority of us claim animals as our resources as we use them for eating, making clothing, (leather and fur jackets, shoes) working animals, as a means of transport, animal testing etc. In this essay I will discuss the use of animals in biomedical research and state why some believe it is morally justified. I will then present an objection to argue why biomedical research is morally unjustified and why I believe this. I will write this essay using resources from Tom Regan 's, “The case for animal rights”, David DeGrazia’s, “The ethics of animal research: what are the prospects for agreement?’, Baruch A. Brody’s, “Defending animal research: An international perspective” and Peter Singer’s, “Animal Liberation at 30”. I will then come to my own conclusion based on the different perspectives from the above philosophers and by using my own knowledge on the issue.

An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing (PROCON.ORG, 2015) and More than 4 million animals are experimented on inside British laboratories in 2012 (ANIMAL AID, 2014). Killing animals by laboratory experiments generates a lot of anxiety about the future of wildlife, which led to the writing of this essay. In the beginning of this essay, It will discuss both Points of View against testing on animals. After that it will demonstrate review of cruelty and brutality suffered by the experimental animals. It will then focus on the alternative methods and finally It will be shown that testing on animals is out of date. In spite of the practice of experimenting on live animals gives

Every year in the United States of America more than 100 million helpless animals will suffer and die from malicious chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests. Rabbits, Cats, birds, reptiles and amphibians are not covered by the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act, so they go unnoticed towards the millions of sufferers. Millions of rodents, birds, rabbits, primates, felines, canines, and other types of animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. People have diverse opinions on animal testing and its morality. Morality refers to the standards of right and wrong shared in the society. We can define it as “human rights.” Ten moral traditions that all serious people accept are:

In the history of mankind, human used numerous animals to sustain their life and to keep their species. They used animals to hunt other animals or they use them to protect themselves. Sometimes they eat the hunting animals if they fail to hunt other animal. They also used animals to acquire knowledge. They learned biology through dissect animals and they also learned pharmacology through test medicines on animals. However present day, people start to ask question about ethics of animal testing. Some groups of people say that animal testing has no problem with ethics. Most of people in this groups does not want to think of animals as on the same level of themselves. On the other hand, other groups of people think that because animals cannot

Hope Ferdowsian and Nancy Beck, authors of the article “Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and research”, published in the journal PLoS ONE argued that scientists should consider whether or not testing on animals is ethical in hopes to lessen the usage of animals for experiments. Hope Ferdowsian is a member of the “physicians committee for responsible medicine” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, P. 1) in Washington DC. She studied international affairs, and currently advocates for animal rights, while Nancy Beck works in the“department of medicine” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, P. 1) at George Washington University. Both authors suggest that scientists use the “3R’s” (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011, P. 1), also known as reducing the

The issue of animal experimentation has been hotly debated in regards to many aspects of the problem, such as the rights of the animals and the beneficial results that come from animal experimentation. In the year of 1989, the United States Supreme Court ruled the first victory for pro-animal welfare in the Silver Spring Monkey case when seventeen monkeys had been held captive under inadequate living conditions, and were subject to experimentation that was deemed animal abuse (peta.org). For several decades, animal experimentation has been a controversial issue in the medical world and has made little progress to either side of the spectrum. Although animal testing has developed cures and treatments for several different illnesses that once wreaked havoc across nations worldwide, the animals involved in these tests to produce the medicines may not have been treated humanely. These concerns revolve around the animals environment in the lab, how often they are fed and given water, whether they are enduring any form of physical pain, and if the animal is suffering any serious psychological effects from experimentation (peta.org). Many scientist differ, however, by claiming that animal lives in the laboratory are much healthier and humane than they used to be in the past. These statements are backed by laws that have been made to create standard health

In the early 18th centuries, a popular idea was launched with the hopes of finding significant scientific animal research. The idea was known as a vivisection, which is defined as “the practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research”. By the next century, the idea had taken off and the term “vivisection” was used specifically for people that were completely opposed to the idea of using live animals for cruel and inhumane experiments, researches, and projects. Now in the 21st century, many anti-vivisection society’s exist; including American Anti-Vivisection Society and the National Anti-Vivisection Society, that were both based off the grounds of ending harmful, cruel, and costly scientific experiments on animals.

According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society there are three main ways animals are used in science; testing, biomedical research and dissection. In this paper I’d like to only focus on animal testing which encompasses using animals to “assess the safety of cosmetic, personal care, household products, chemicals, medical devices, and their component ingredients” ("Testing"). Some believe that this type of animal testing is necessary and in some cases it is even mandatory for certain products. I disagree with the necessity of this animal testing and believe it should be banned in the United States, so I will argue the points in this paper.