Animal Research : Is It Human Or Inhuman?

For example “ An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA”(“Arguments against Animal Testing.” Cruelty Free International. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2016). 100 mouse and only 50% match human, If I were having brain surgery and only 50% of the mice matched me, I would have the operation. Another example is “95% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests-whether on safety grounds or because they do not work” (“Arguments against Animal Testing.” Cruelty Free International. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2016). Charlie was dealing with mice before he had the operation and I know this fact is drug testing but the fact does tell you that animal testing isn’t always the thing to go off of. The text states that “Using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides little statistically useful insight, out recent analysis found” (“Arguments against Animal Testing.” Cruelty Free International. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2016). These animals are not similar enough to us in size of brain and other things to be tested on and know everything will work the same, in Charlie's case he ended up losing intelligence like Algernon. The doctors eventually knew Charlie may lose all his smarts but they wanted to take the risk without Charlie's full

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

Peter Singer’s article, titled “All Animals Are Equal,” takes an approach on the long standing debate of human versus animal equality. His stance is strong and clear. Humans must not experiment on nonhuman animals (hereinafter referred to as ‘animals’) because they should be treated as equals: “equal, that is, to each other and to humans” (Singer 112). Singer appears to be both ignorant and mistaken in his discussion of animal rights. Instead of focusing on the positives that come from animal experimentation, he instead focuses solely on the ethics behind it. Though this ethical debate is not new, and many have concluded that it is, in sorts, a necessary evil, Singer still attempts to persuade the reader. His arguments are unsound, and his reasoning far-fetched, as Carl Cohen argues in his article, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” One of Singer’s specific arguments is that speciesism and racism can be compared to one another because they are equal in their discriminatory actions. This is not only untrue, but it also diminishes the struggles of suffering from racist acts by further encouraging the thought that black people are not equals to anyone but animals.

One reason that it isn’t ethical to do scientific research on animals is because animals are killed each year. About 20 million animals are experimented and killed annually. LIke I said before animals are starved, shocked, burned, and poisoned as scientists look for something that just might yield some human benefit. In one case, baby mice had their legs chopped off so that experimenters could observe whether they 'd learn to groom themselves with their stumps. In another, polar bears were submerged in a tank of crude oil and salt water to see if they 'd live. And, for those experiments which do have merit, there exist many non-animal alternatives. We don’t need animals to die. When scientists test

Animal testing is used frequently among the field of research to identify new cures of the modern science field to help cure disease, find cures, or simply identify variables in a theory. Yet, it is brought to question: is it morally wrong to test another living organism that is not a human being? Billions of animals lose their lives each year due to animal testing. Animals should be attributed to help enhance the fields of Psychological Research as long the experiments have a higher gain value than the level of cruelty that is imposed upon the animals that are being used for testing. Although the line between what is considered an effective research or pain caused for human financial benefit; there are two mindsets that are pointed out to continue animal research: the scientific view and the ethical view. But, most importantly to identify the purposes of a choice done by ethical egoism and contractarianism to benefit individuals financially and instead have utilitarianism content of moral norms to use on the animal research field.

In conclusion, animal testing, is cruel to animals and very dangerous because of its unreliability. It also i just morally wrong these poor animals live in stress, fear, and pain and is forced upon them without their consent. It is largely inconclusive because animal anatomy is different from human anatomy; results of testing cannot be said to mimic the results in

Through testing with animal research scientist have been able to create new cures and treat once thought incurable diseases. Many biomedical experiments developed treatments for anthrax, rabies, polio and smallpox, as well as developed anti-depressants, tranquilizers and antibiotics for medical use. Advocates of the opposition are hardly reasonable as their opinions are adjusted purely for emotional value. Their main argument is the fact that animal testing harms

Before jumping into the whole justification of animal experimentation, it’s important to examine the rights and guidelines that protect the animal itself. Although there may be different guidelines for different animals, the following were created by the American Psychological Association (APA). According to the APA, the first guideline goes to explain that research should be “undertaken with a clear specific purpose.” The research must come to a reasonable expectation such as increasing the understanding of the animals under study, or providing outcomes that will have an impact on “the health,” or well-being of individuals or other creatures. The drive of this study ought to “ensure a significance to prove the use of nonhuman animals.” Whoever the

I believe the author was very fair in his statements. He said in the second to last paragraph that humans and animals are not of equal worth (page 5). But, just because animals are not of equal worth does not equate cruel treatment. If a scientist is going to inflict pain on a human for an experiment, it is known that that would be unlawful. The author then brings the question to my mind: “Does this mean that an animal is a better resort for this

On the more sensitive side of the issue, animal testing has been noticeably recognized as inhuman. As an article in ProCon.org states, “…animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to…pain during experiments while be given no anesthesia for relief…” (“Animal Testing- ProCon.org”). Shannon Keith, the President of Beagle Freedom Project, shares her experience as a rescue leader. She sadly informs me, “…these animals have undergone numerous tests and have been deprived of the proper care, nourishment, environment, and basic rights.” The Beagle Freedom Project dedicates their time to rescue beagles and other animals from the inhuman and cruel living conditions (Keith). There have been arguments made by the “Understanding Animal Research”

A majority of humans will show immense respect towards scientists and researchers. Their education and profound knowledge are praised in advancing our health care, households and human life in general. These successful studies however, may have included some form of harmful animal suffering to achieve the objectives of human growth and development. Some may argue that animal testing is morally essential in our ever-growing society as it allows researchers to determine progressive factors in not only the human species but the animal species as well (Rollin

In the article “Research on Animals: Unforeseen Benefits,”1 the author, Adrian Morrison (1991), believes that biomedical research requires the use of animals due to the “long term gains” acquired (p. 176). Morrison continues to explain how people who believe that animals should not be tested on are not thinking about the effects these animals could have in the lab. He begins explaining how he believes that research

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

Animal testing is inhumane and unethical based on the scientifically supported claim that humans are also animals. Animals deserve to be treated on the same level as humans and humans have much to learn from them. One could argue an extreme point of view that testing animals is similar to testing a family member, such as a cousin. In Ferdinando Boero’s “Humans Are Animals,” he takes the stance that anthropologists and zoologists are in the same scientific sector. His claim is supported since humans are animals, then zoology is a part of anthropology. They can use this to help contribute to each other’s research, if only

Peter Singer’s argument for determining when animal experiments are justified is stated in his papers “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research”. His argument in regards to animal experimentation and speciesism is very thought provoking and makes the readers review their own biases regarding human/animal relations. Although some of the ideas the author brings forward, such as using mentally retarded or orphaned babies for experimentation, are radical, they do make one think about the biases we have as a species. Also, his thoughts on mammals and birds ability to feel pain being