Animal Testing Argumentative Essay

Ethics in psychological research and testing is one of the most important issues today. The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted over 40 years ago, brought these ethical issues into the limelight and remains one of the most controversial studies in the history of studying human behavior. This paper aims to define ethics, describe risk/benefit ratio, provide a brief background on the Stanford Prison Experiment, and evaluate the impact it has had on psychological research.

The experimental study that I chose to write about is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which was run by Phillip Zimbardo. More than seventy applicants answered an ad looking for volunteers to participate in a study that tested the physiological effects of prison life. The volunteers were all given interviews and personality tests. The study was left with twenty-four male college students. For the experiment, eighteen volunteers took part, with the other volunteers being on call. The volunteers were then divided into two groups, guards and prisoners, randomly assigned by coin flips. The experiment began on August 14th, 1971 in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. To create the prison cells for the prisoners, the doors were taken

The first argument claims that animal research plays a vital role in virtually every major medical advances in this last century for both human health and veterinary health (Trull, 2014). The first premise says that animal research was a vital role for all medical advances, which is fact-based. However, it is not true because there are medical discoveries that are founded without the use of animal testing such as clinical research. The second premise states that medical treatments have advanced in the last century, which is fact based. This is true because there are medical breakthroughs of different discoveries throughout the time from the help of animal testing. Therefore, the conclusion states that animal research contribute for both human health and veterinary health. The fallacy used for this argument is appeal to

The Stanford Prison Experiment had many issues that started a chain of problems within the experiment. Ethical issues that challenged the subjects who partook in the experiment moral values and behavior. Many of the steps taken in the experiment were unethical, one being the fact that the subjects were arrested without consent. Furthermore, the subjects were dehumanized and taunted, and humiliated which tested them physically and mentally. They were told to do push-ups as a punishment and often with a foot on their backs. After a rebellion the unethical behavior from the subjects who were guards increased. Beds along with proper use of toilet facilities were taken away which is deemed extremely unethical. Harassment and intimidation were pretty frequent among guard subjects to make prison subjects more dependent on them. The psychological harm of the subjects was not taken into consideration and it is seen from Prisoners #819 and #8612 as they began to crumble mentally.

Do you know that the lipstick that we use to make ourselves look better but blinded millions of innocent animals? Do you know that the perfume we use to make ourselves smell better but poisoned millions of innocent animals? Do you know that the medicine we had to make ourselves feel better but killed millions of innocent animals? Animal testing is the ‘ugly secret of beauty industry’ and ‘darkness portion in medical field’.

Prison administration and medical researchers need to develop an attitude that is respectful, sensitive, and seeks to improve and treat inmates. Overholster contends that prisons should aim to rehabilitate inmates rather than punish them (194). Capron argues that the government should participate both in forming and regulating policy (4). Perhaps, the government should set quotas on the number of medical research experiments in prisons in order to invest more efforts and time in setting up a good environment and regulating research. Depending on how research and treatment fares in prisons, the government can tighten or relax restrictions on the purpose and nature of medical research in

In some cases, inmates are not informed of the risks that could occur during an experiment. In 1951 and 1974, the University of Pennsylvania conducted a research study that, “deliberately exposed prisoners to dangerous and toxic substances without informing them of the attendant risks” (Talvi). As a result, many complained of psychological trauma and physical illness. Usually, scientists are more consumed with their achievements in medicine than with the lifelong effects it could have on individuals. The ex-prisoners, “now in their fifties and sixties...suffer from breathing problems, gynecological complications, and all manner of skin rashes and infections” as a result of medical experimentation (Talvi). These incarcerated people would not have given consent to be experimented on if they knew what the research fully consisted of. I believe that it is highly important for people to advise their subjects of all the possible risks of a study, so it does not lead to unfortunate circumstances, like lawsuits for the experimenter or psychological trauma for the

Because of research done in the past, where ethical questions arose, there are rules and guidelines in place to prevent the abuse of prisoners. Advocates say that, in certain instances where the risks for general participants are equivalent to those of prisoner participants, and the risks were approved and accepted by general participants then prisoners should not be restricted in order to protect them from abuse (Pacquerella, 2002).

Look at the tag of your shirt, where does it say its from? Now, does it say how many people it took to make it or how much time it took? Apply that same logic to when you buy shampoo. Does it say how many animals died when they tested the product? No, it does not. Companies and factories do this for a reason, they want us to be unaware of the facts. Within the next few moments I hope to enlighten you with information you may not know about animal testing.

Prisoner population is classified as a vulnerable population in the research projects. A greater protection is required to guarantee that the research involving the prisoner population meets the highest ethical standards and seeks to improve the well-being of prisoners. The first approach to resolving this ethical issue would be to develop clear and transparent processes for ethical health research, which should be informed by multiple stakeholders, including prisoners, the correctional services staff, and researchers themselves.

According to the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), under the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) “the categories of permissible research are the following: study of prisons as institutional structures or of prisoners as incarcerated persons, provided that the study presents no more than minimal risk and no more than inconvenience to the subjects.” This means that prisoners can be included in experiments as subjects only when the research involves physical or psychological harm that is normally encountered in the daily lives, or in the routine medical, dental, or psychological examination of healthy persons. According to the Legal Information Institute, “The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been held to apply to prison inmates.” So if non-prisoners aren’t used in medical experiments, then neither should prisoners. The Legal Information Institute also states “the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual

As a scientist opens the rusty cage door, the fuzzy hamster bolts to the very edge so that the scientist would have trouble getting the mouse out. The hamster squeals, cries, and shivers, as the huge hand wraps around its body pulling the hamster out of the cage. As soon as the hand releases the hamster, the scientist injects numerous amounts of chemicals into it. The chemicals are so toxic that the mouse lost its life instantly. Even though many researchers chose to use animal testing, that is one of the many ways of research. Animal testing should no longer be needed since there are better, alternative ways to research without harming live animals.

Imagine being a tiny harmless creature strapped down to a cold metal table in a lab, with no room to move, and multiple experiments, which are harmful to you, being tested on your body. Animals such as; mice, rats, cats, guinea pigs, and many others are suffering through this reality. In today’s society, animal testing, for scientific purposes, has become considered a normal occurrence; however, animals can not accurately represent a real comparison to humans, there are new methods that can replace animals, and scientists understand the toll it takes on animals, so it is considered animal abuse.

The rights of animals has been an argumentative topic for centuries. As far back as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Britain was shaped there has been long running rational discussions on the subject of animal rights. The principal social orders were framed to ensure and look after human treatment of work animals, for example, cattle, donkeys, and house hold pets. Towards the finish of the nineteenth century more associations were made, only this time to challenge the utilization of animals in experimentation. In the present society gatherings for example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have proceeded with these conventional battles and also including new motivation. Animal testing is one of the many controversial topics that involves the rights of animals and has been disputed for centuries throughout the world. Experimentation on animals is inhumane and cruel and scientist should not be able to test cosmetics, and immunizations on poor, innocent animals. Many argue that substitute assets and strategies are accessible to researchers with the goal that testing on animals can be maintained a strategic distance from, and people and creatures are so extraordinary in their hereditary cosmetics that the outcomes taken from testing on creatures can be totally unique in relation to people. Performing experiments on animals is abusing defenseless animals. Researchers express that animal testing is the best way to watch and research a living

Could you imagine your pet dog, cat, guinea pig, mouse or rabbit laying on a experimenting table with their life at risk (Wright)? Most people’s stomach’s would turn at the sight of it. An estimated fifty to one hundred million animals are experimented on each year not knowing what will happen to them. Smaller animals such as mice, flies, as well as worms are euthanized after the experiment no matter the outcome, so even if the experiment works, the animals are still killed (ProCon.org). It should be illegal for animals to be experimented on in schools as well as in labs.