Animal Testing: the Animal Rights Debate. New York: the Rosen Publishing

“Animal Testing Is Bad Science.” Animal Rights, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010954207/OVIC?u=scschools&sid=OVIC&xid=96434ce4. Accessed 25 Apr. 2018. Originally published as “Animal Testing Is Bad Science:

Thesis: Animal testing is a heavy topic that usually goes unnoticed. To many scientists, animal testing is beneficial and to society it is morally wrong.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma Gandhi). Scientists have been using animals for biomedical research for centuries. They provide a source to get information scientists can not get without harming humans. A lot of debate is spread about whether it is good or bad. Animal experimentation is a controversial topic because it is helpful to humans, but it is also cruel and inhumane.

Asking just about any animal rights activists on the thoughts of animal testing, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of them would address crucial flaws in many of the laws in regards to animals and how animals are supposedly “protected” by these laws. Trained scientists and researchers take on the key role of testing on animals in laboratories and facilities throughout the world, using the excuse that we are expanding knowledge and furthering medical research. In the United States alone, there are very few laws truly protecting animals from the unnecessary amounts of suffering the research forces upon them with many exceptions. Additionally, in reference to the scientists who perform these tests, the author of the article,

All around the globe, animal testing has been the most controversial and frequently debated topic. Animal testing is cruel, however, it has helped us develop and become more advanced in sciences and technology. Below are the points and reasons for and against the motion, discussed to help you pick your side. Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing.

This paper addresses animal activists who strongly believe that animal testing is cruel and inhumane act. My audiences are already aware of the situation where tremendous amount of animals are harmed and some even killed from animal testing and experiments. Since they lean towards the side of arguments that disapproves animal testing, my purpose of writing this essay is to at least let my primary audiences to understand and accept the fundamental reasons for conducting animal testing.

The animals in research, teaching and testing is an important issue. Most of the discussion is revolving around the relative value, often referred to as moral value, of humans and animals. (Burrell) How do you decide what is right when the needs of animals and humans come into conflict? It’s difficult to have decisions when so many people have

Whenever people buy any chemical products, have they ever thought how can manufacturers guarantee the fail-safety of these products? A million of animals are killed or disabled with complete impunity is an answer for their safety; Therefore, these poor animals have been tested in several experiments throughout the world. However, most of these unkind activities performed in the laboratories are so ruthless we will never image one human doing it to another animal. As an animal right, many people feel that animal testing may have bad influences on them. In this essay, it will be contended that animal testing should be banned because it is so cruel, unnecessary and does not always provide satisfactory treatments for human’s illnesses.

Good morning/Afternoon students and Mrs Dwyer today I will be talking about how animal tested products should not be manufactured or sold in Australia. Firstly, animal experimentation is a horrible thing that causes animals so much unnecessary pain and stress. Secondly, it is very unreliable and wasteful as millions of dollars fund it every year yet hardly any products tested on animals make it to human testing and hardly any of those make it to stores. Additionally there have been many alternatives developed which cause no harm

However, some would claim that animal commercial and scientific testing is justified because animals need to be sacrificed in order to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with that reasoning is that making human’s lives better should not be an excuse for touching and exploiting animals. Animal test subjects are injected with painful toxins, drowned, starved, and abandoned in their immaculate lives (“Examples of Severe Animal Suffering in Laboratories”). Thus, animal testing needs to end, the method’s are inhumane, torturing animals to death in the gain of human

Thesis Statement: Although animal testing has played a significant role in scientific development, the use of animals for scientific inquiry is morally wrong.

The reasons for animal researching are understandable and could change a person’s decision whether or not they would want to ban animal testing. Scientific knowledge is

Experimentation of animals has animal rights advocates and some scientists questioning the effectiveness and validity that animal testing has a meaningful impact on medical advancement. Dating back to the 2nd century B.C., early Greek scientists performed experiments on living animals for the purpose of advancing their knowledge and understanding of the human body. However, recent research has proven that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body (Animal Testing, 2015). Everyone agrees that animals are used for research. Some people believe that it is unethical treatment of animals, while others believe that animal testing is necessary for the advancement of improving human health. (People for the, 2014). Experimentation on animals is costly, unethical, and unreliable, and should be prohibited.

Originally, animal testing took place by Early Greek and Roman physician-scientists, such as Aristotle, (384 – 322 BC), Erasistratus, (304 – 258 BC), and Galen (129 – 199 / 217 AD). These scientists claimed they introduced this experiment because they wanted to have a better understanding of anatomy. A few years passed, Ibn Zuhr, an Arab physician in the twelfth century, presented animal testing as an experimental method to analyze surgical procedures before applying them to human patients. This caused many people to criticize the practice of using animals for biomedical research. As a result, laws were passed to stop the inhumane cruelty of animal testing. Animal testing should be heavily prosecuted for its outright violation of animal rights, the manipulation of their genetics, and false view humans and animals are similar.

Observation and experimentation are how we as humans have been able to learn more about ourselves and the world and universe we live in. One of the most common methods of experimentation is animal testing. However, there are controversies surrounding animal testing. There are some that believe animal testing to be cruel and overdone, advocating for the eradication of the practice and further reliance alternative research methods. Groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights advocates fall in this category. There are some that believe animal testing to be an invaluable resource and should continue, such as some scientists and research groups. However, there appears to me to be a consensus that is closer to the middle: the belief and understanding that while there are benefits to animal testing, there are flaws in the practice and there should be changes to increase its efficacy while we simultaneously explore alternate testing methods. Many scientists and the National Institute of Health (NIH) subscribe to this idea. I aim to explore the benefits, problems, and implications of animal testing in order to reach a more informed conclusion about a position that is most validated by the information I have used.