Animal Testing Bibliography

This is an annotated bibliography of animal testing and if it’s morally justified. There are many opinions on the results and the entire process that it takes to test a cosmetic product or a medicine on an animal. There are many alternatives and benefits to animal testing but is it really justified? Or are animals in potential danger.

As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.

Around the world, millions of scientists conduct their studies by testing their research on animals. Many people believe that experimenting on animals is crucial to the advancement of medical discoveries. Studies show however, that animal experimentation is brutal and unnecessary. There are alternatives though: “replacement, reduction, and refinement” (Howard 2).

. "No such Thing as Humane Animal Experimentation." The Ecologist, vol. 35, no. 1, 2005., pp.

Approximately 26 million animals are used every year in the United States alone for research and commercial testing (“Background of the Issue” 1). For years, legislators have debated the pros and cons of animal testing, and laws were passed to attempt to fix the inhumane treatment of the cute, innocent testing subjects, the animals. Although the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was revised numerous times, “the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories” and are the animals that are specifically exempted from protection under the act (“Experiments on Animals” 2). A simple fix to animal cruelty during testing is to use alternative methods since human and animal bodies already vary greatly. For years, animal testing was the best option because there was no alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system; however, in the age of technology, there is no reason for millions of animals to be killed due to the severity of the testing. Therefore, animal testing should be banned because alternative methods provide more accurate results since human bodies are very different than animal bodies; furthermore, animal advocacy organizations should promote cruelty-free products more so customers know what to purchase and use.

Many people often oversee the effects of animal testing. This has been going on for decades and many are unaware of the results and the damages animal testing can cause. Animals undergo a lot of stress and pain when they are put through experimentations. Many have debated that it is unethical to test on animals while others say it helps to protect the safety of humans. In my opinion, animal testing is cruel and should be made illegal. Their lives are just as important as human lives and should not be treated as experimental animals. The system of an animal differs from the human system, therefore even if a tested product did not harm the animal, it may or may not be harmful to humans. Hence, our body system reactions differ from the bodies of an animal. It has been scientifically proven that 90% of the animals being tested in labs results in death while only a handful of animal experiments are successful. There are multiple alternative methods rather than forcefully harming innocent animals. I will explore how animal testing can affect the health of the animals and if there is possibly a better alternative rather than testing on animals.

The goal of this source is to explain the many uses of animals in testing and give examples of how many corporations are funding this cruelty, stating that this is a necessity to educational purposes. This company is very animal friendly and constantly involved in protecting animals and giving them the rights they deserve therefore, it is a very reliable source.

To support or not support animal testing practices has been a long debated topic. Animals have been used in medical and cosmetic tests since the 1900s leading to numerous medical treatment breakthroughs and ensuring the safety of everyday products we use. Recently animal advocate groups have called for the abolishment of animal testing, causing a divide on whether or not to continue animal testing. In order to keep innovating new solutions for diseases that plague our communities and loved ones, allowing the use of animal testing to end preventable tragedies must occur.

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel and inhumane but also often ineffective. 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. There have been past occasions where drugs passed on animals weren’t even safe. There is no excuse for animal testing in today’s techy world, there are now many alternatives for animal testing that would put an end to the pain and suffering endured by these innocent animals during human testing.

Whether animal testing is considered to be useful or unnecessary in the development of medicine is an ongoing discussion. Animal testing is the issue Andrew Rowan and Jack Botting with Adrian Morrison discuss in both their articles. “Avoiding Animal Testing” was written in 2011 by Andrew Rowan and was published in The Scientist. Jack Botting along with Adrian Morrison are the authors of “Animals are Vital to Medicine,” which was published in the Scientific American. All three authors clearly state their position on this issue from the beginning of their articles, starting with each of their titles. In “Avoiding Animal

It is estimated that each year over 100 million animals in the United States are used for animal testing (ProCon.org, 2017). This is unlikely an underestimate as it is impossible to receive a correct count worldwide. Thousands of animals are to be euthanized from the complications they endure from testing. Animals are used to test scientific developments and commercial products. New medical and non-medical experiments are tested on animals to verify the harmfulness of new medications or the safety of a product that will be used on humans. Although the importance of animal testing brings more medical advancement over the years using fewer humans in experiments, it is still an expensive way of researching inaccurate results and at the same time, it is a practice of animal cruelty.

In this project ,my group members focus on the effect and alternatives of animal testing. Animal testing also known as animal experimentation or in-vivo research is the use of non-human animals in experiments, in other words, it is the procedure performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases. For example, test new medical products, to make sure it is safe for human use. There are many different species are used around the world, but the most common include mice, monkey, fish, rats, rabbits, hamsters, birds, cats, dogs. And farm animals,

Using animals for research is not reliable in predicting the outcome of new chemicals on the human body system. According to American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Nine out of ten drugs that appear promising in animals studies go on to fail in human clinical trials.” That indicates that almost ninety percent of traditional animal experiments fail in human trials. Although humans are similar to animals, they still do not have the exact genetic make up as animals. American Anti-Vivisection Society claims that, “Even the same species have similar differences that can be found among different genders, breeds, ages and weight ranges, and ethnic backgrounds.” For example, humans react to new products differently because nobody is genetically the same. Some people experience the therapeutic effect of a drug and then others may have an allergic reaction to the drug. Even in the human species researchers see that not all drugs or products produce the same ideal results that are expected. If there were such wide variations of results between the same species why would it be logical to test products intended for human use on animals? This is a question that most advocates for alternative methods to animal testing would ask.

“Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US labs every year” (11 Facts). Animal testing is a very flawed creation in today’s world. This innovation has caused much harm to many animals while also hurting the opinions of animal activists around the world. Animal testing is also known as the use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials (Biology Online). The use of animal testing has been around for throughout all of history, it also carries its disadvantages as they diminish the lives of many animals along with their unspoken opinion while also having some advantages, and lastly this notion is very expensive (Scutti).

A great example in the twentieth century of a drug called Diethylene Glycol (DEG) gives us great reason on why animal testing is needed for the greater good. Stated by Rachel Hajar (2011), “He simply added raspberry flavoring to the sulfa drug, which he had