Animal Testing : Social And Moral Views

An estimated 30 million animals are used per year in biomedical and research experiments ("Update: Animal Testing" 1). In particular, about 75,000 dogs, including thousands from homeless shelters, are abused every year in laboratories in the United States ("Dogs in Laboratories | PETA.org” 1). “Man’s best friend” is a preferred choice by scientists for use in toxicology experiments. Dogs are tormented as they undergo tests involving overdoses of pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, or household products, gradually poisoning them and sometimes resulting in death ("Dogs in Laboratories | PETA.org” 1). In what way does treating animals with such disrespect seem ethical at all? Animals were not put on the earth to be destroyed for research in the name of “science.”

In the first place, over one hundred million animals are used and killed each year in animal testing. These animals include mice, rats,

It is no secret that millions of animals a year are used for medical experimentation. One study “found the number of animals tested rose from 1,566,994 in 1997 to 2,705,772 in 2012” (Casey). It is my belief that researchers use virtue theory to defend their experimentations. While animal activists approach experimentation through the ethics of care. I am against animal experimentation, but I will also provide insight into why people believe it is ethically just.

How could one not feel guilty when looking into a test animal’s eyes and seeing all of the pain and suffering that they have endured? Over 75-100 million animals are used for scientific and medical research per year. (Baumans) Animals should not be used for scientific and medical research because it is unethical, humans and animals are not genetically identical resulting in failed tests, and there are other techniques to conduct research.

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.

According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are frequently subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water distraught, lengthy periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other lesions to study the remedial process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and killing by carbon dioxide suffocation, neck-breaking, beheading, or other means. The Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility reported in 2010 that 98,123 animals agonized pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 2,495 primates, 5,996 rabbits and 47,014 hamsters (Ben,

“Lots of people talk to animals…Not very many listen, though…That’s the problem”(Ben Hoffman). The controversy of animal testing is phenomenal; it always has been. I remember dissecting animals throughout my years of school in the "name of science". It was only until recently that I started questioning the government 's methods to teach us. We dissected a dog shark in my oceanography class last year. There had to been at least 80 dead sharks in about four different buckets; that was when it crossed the line. I understood a lamb eye or something, but breeding sharks in captivity just so they can be killed? Animal testing is wrong in every way to me.

Experimentation is a vital aspect of all sciences, as it validates hypothesis and furthers scientific development. However, many believe that science crosses the line when animals become subjected to experimentation as a way to further research. This is a controversial topic, as it examines what to us, as humans, is more important, morality or science? These animals are forced to endure pain and suffering, in an attempt to prolong and ease the lives of humans. Animal vivisection is unethical, and there are alternatives that can be utilized, therefore, it should be lessened, and ultimately eradicated.

Imagine a life locked away in a cage with no form of control on your existence. It’s cold, dark, and you are scared. You don’t have a choice of what you eat, where you live, or how you are treated. You are unsure if it is day or night or what will happen to you next. You are locked away in a prison cell and you committed no crime. This is the life of a laboratory animal. Animal testing is the use of animals for scientific research purposes and experiments. It can be used for the findings of cures and medicines to testing new drugs, to understanding the behavioral psychology of the animals themselves. “Around fifty to one hundred million vertebrate animals, ranging from fish to primates, are used in experiments each year” (Lloyd). There are

According to Animal Testing-ProCon, millions of animals could have died from rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, and many more if they were never experimented on. Also, animal experimentation has allowed us to save endangered species from extinction like the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil (Animal Testing-ProCon, 2017). All over the world there are hundreds maybe even thousands of endangered species, but by experimenting on them we could find ways to save them.

Scientists have a moral, and practical obligation to keep these animals in good health while they are under captive conditions (Gewin, 2008). Most animal conservation scientists are attentive to the growing concerns for animal well-being, and continue to learn that threats to species, populations, and ecosystems, impact animal welfare directly, or indirectly (Patton et al., 2000). Typically, however, they advocate focusing moral concern and societal action on such ends as the protection of endangered species and the preservation of wilderness, rather than reducing pain and suffering (or promoting the rights or dignity) of animals (Meffe, 2008). Research done by these scientists would seem to produce a positive value that deserves to be weighed against any disvalue produced by hurting or stressing an animal during the research process. All aspects considered, this research is still met with questions of moral credibility, even if the animals show signs of improved health, because it eliminates the animal’s freedom or treats them as a “mere means” to some anthropocentric end (Jones and McGreevy,

Frequently, scientists do not use pain relievers on animals because it is not required. An article called “Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories” by PETA stated, “After enduring these terrifying, painful procedures, animals are then usually dumped back into a cage without any painkillers.” (1). Depending upon the procedure performed, this could put animal test subjects through large amounts of pain and suffering. There is a concerning lack of actionable regulation and governance regarding animal testing and research as well. Scientists are legally able to test almost any procedure they wish, regardless of the harsh or painful circumstances. The cruel treatment and faulty procedures used on animals have caused unnecessary deaths of animals. These needless deaths are usually caused by accidents in experiments, harsh treatment, or carelessness and neglect. Sometimes, needless deaths occur simply because the animals are no longer needed, and the easiest way to dispose of them is to kill

The development of new treatments including medicines are distinguished for being time consuming, costly and complex. However, this timely manner is beneficial for society as it meant to provide an efficient and safe medication. Concerns regarding when animal studies are necessary compared to clinical trials has been a debatable topic among society. For over a decade, animal research has served as a fundamental component in many medical findings. Mousses are commonly used in laboratories, as we as humans share nearly 95% of our genes, making them a useful and efficient model for the assistance of discovering medications used today (Grant, 2017). Bench studies should continue to be practiced by researchers as

The controversy behind animals as research subjects is mainly one of morals and the ethical treatment of said animals. Many people believe we should use them in this way, so we aren 't actually harming people in the pursuit for better things for humans. Though animal testing was a viable resource for many years, it has proven to be extremely controversial and unethical, therefor the use of animals as research subjects should be outlawed.

Animal experimentation remains serious problems in our society. Some people treat animals as pets and others use them to develop technology. In recent years, animals are used in order to make sure that products are safe enough to be used for humans. Also new effective medical treatments have been effectively developed because of animal experiments. However, people are using animals to satisfy their own desires and they do not consider the rights of animals that were sacrificed for animal experiment. People should know that the animals used in animal experimentation are worthier than the benefits that people can earn from it. Animals should not be used in the experiments for the following reasons; it is a