Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing In The United States

Everybody in the world is dropping like flies around you. Don’t you wish you would of done something? Animal testing is what we use to get our preventions and medicines for illnesses. We test on animals because otherwise, we would be tested on. Some people believe that this is evil because animals have rights. If we didn't use animals for testing, we could put harmful medicines and vaccinations in our body that would do more harm than good. Animal testing should continue to be a part of our country, because it will help us cure illnesses, it won't let us become the lab rats, and it will help our country grow in the long run.

Generally speaking, if you were to hear, “It's time for you to test a vaccine that may or may not be dangerous or even possibly fatal, for the sake of a different species.” It's understandable that the notion of this may make you feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, this exact situation is what happens to animals across the world. One charged debate that has taken place for a long period, of time, is whether animal testing has a valid position, within, the field of health and medicine studies. There are two heavily opinionated sides within this conflict. There are those who feel Animal Testing is necessary for the future of medicine, then there are the people who believe that animal testing ( even though, perhaps once had a reasonable stand) no longer serves a purpose in health and medicine, believing animal testing to be ( for many people but not all) morally unacceptable and an outdated practice. Upon reflecting on the arguments brought before both sides of this debate, it can be concluded that animals should no longer be used to test on as it's ineffective and a waste of time.

This book was a really good source for two reasons. I used this source a lot in my paper not just quoting what the author said, but also using the case studies. The case studies helped me a lot because they usually worked as examples of abuse and neglect..The case studies helped me a out because, there was a lot of good ones that talked a lot about what exactly is happening in labs. They talk about a lot of stuff that people don't really know what's going on in the labs. This book also had a few really good quotes that I used. That is why this book was a really good source to use.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, supporters strongly argue a multitude of reasons why animal testing has been and will continue to be the best form of experimentation for upcoming products in the market. The first and most prominent reason is that testing on animals “has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments,” including medication for cancer, severe injuries, leukemia, and more (“Should Animals Be Used”). Not only do these medical advancements bring significant progress into the scientific field, but they are also the only adequate form of testing which fully reveals all the responses that would be mirrored in human beings. The pro side, as established by ProCon.org, commonly articulates that:

There are many reasons as to why animal testing is an unethical and outdated practice, yet it is still being carried out in this day and age. Thanks to advances in scientific research, animal testing is no longer a necessary evil, so its use is more of an inconvenience than an advantage. And although there are many reasons as to why animal testing should be discontinued, costs, alternative testing, and its psychological effects on animals are the strongest arguments as to why it should be banned.

Animal testing: research and development projects on animals, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs. These days many people think that animal testing plays a major role in the medical and scientific research that would help contribute to medical advances in the future. In reality animal testing are undertaken simply out of curiosity to see how the animal react to different substances. Many times animals in laboratories, are forced to go through pain, misery, and disease, and just to be killed at the end of the study when they are no more of usage. Such animal testing is morally wrong and should be stopped before more animals are being put in misery from animal testing.

Testing products on animals are ways that humans do research. It tests whether or not the ingredients will have bad reactions on skin. Consequently, this is a danger for animals that are being kept in captivity and being tortured for human advancement. The cons of this animal abuse are the animals always end up dying or are very close to it, animal testing is cruel and inhumane, and it is very expensive to keep getting animals to kill.

It is estimated that over one hundred million animals are killed each year because of animal testing. The term “Animal Testing” refers to experimentation which takes place before human clinical trials to determine the dosing, toxicity, and efficacy of products for humans. This includes animals being tested for medical research, cosmetic products, and curiosity-driven experimentation. Many times this leads to animals being treated inhumanly and has led to serious controversy in whether or not animal testing is actually effective. In fact, many studies show that testing animals is not a direct analogy for impacting humans, it also kills an unprecedented amount of animals, and throughout the years scientists have found alternative methods for creating beneficial products for humans.

Every day people use products that have been tested on animals without even realizing it. This includes medication, beauty products, and even food. Despite it being a common method of research, there are many instances where it is not necessary to test on animals. Existing methods may be used to replace this cruel practice and can even produce more accurate results. Animal research is not always necessary to advance in science, nor determine product safety.

For a long time, animals had been used in many scientist experiments for cosmetics, chemicals, researches, and mainly in medications. It is very unfair for laboratory animals since there is no law to protect them from being physically and mentally abused. As stated in “U.S. Government Animal Testing Programs” by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals organization, n.d.), that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and FDA (The Food and Drug Administration) allow scientists to use toxic chemicals on animals, even burn and hurt them physically in many ways. The worst part is that they were funded by the U.S. government with the people tax money. Different types of animals that are being used in labs included small animals like mice, birds, fish, to bigger ones like rabbits, cats, dogs, and even primates such as monkeys, and chimpanzees. Thousands of them are living in pain every day, physically and mentally, and died

An animal test is any scientific experiment or test in which a live animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. As right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, suffer from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and stress of their living situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone approaches, and their blood pressure spikes dramatically. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness, and terror, almost all of them will be killed.

Which life is more valuable, a human or an animal? Put yourself in an animal’s position. What if you’re pet was the animal chosen to be tested on for “human safety”? What would you say? How would you react? According to Dr. Richard Klausner, former Director of the National Cancer Institute, “We have cured cancer in mice for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.” Even chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, do not accurately predict results in humans—of the more than 80 HIV vaccines that have proven safe and efficacious in chimpanzees, all have failed to protect or prove safe in humans in nearly 200 human clinical trials, with one actually increasing a human’s chance of HIV infection. For countless years’ animals testing has become a known audacious idea to humans. More than 30 million animals have been used for all kinds or testing and experiments. Animal testing is unlawful and other techniques can be replaced instead of animal testing by stem cells, computerized database and chemicals.

All around the world animals are being tested on with so called “new and improved” drugs and vaccines. One of the most common and wide known animals that are being tested on are rats and mice. More than 100 million mice and rats are killed every year in the U.S. due to animal testing. That means that in the time it took you to read these few short sentences about 45 mice were killed because they were tested on with some drug or vaccine. While testing drugs and vaccines may be convenient, efficient, and cheap, ultimately we are not considering the value of living things therefore mice and rats should not be allowed to be tested on and new laws should be put in place banning animal testing.

For centuries, there has been a continuous debate on the issue of whether or not animal testing is a necessity to the furthering of scientific knowledge for medical advancements and biological understanding. In order to effectively dispute the issue, one must obtain information from valid sources with credible arguments. The following two articles, “Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research?” by Lauris Pycroft and Helen Marston, and, “ Juvenile Animal Testing in Drug Development - Is It Useful?” by Paul Baldrick, have been selected for analysis on whether or not they should be used to debate this topic. The article by Pycroft and Marston provides strong appeals to pathos, but fails to be a supportive source due to being very opinionated and using out of date examples. On the other hand, the article by Baldrick is a strong example of a source with unbiased claims, thorough statistical support, appeals to logos and ethos, along with having well organized ideas, but fails to make an argument for a specific side. Both articles will be analyzed on their ability to give solid facts while remaining unbiased, as well as the level of credibility they obtain by copyright dates, work cited pages, and authenticity of their publishers.

One of the worst and most abusive aspects of animal experimentation is the blatant and exploitive pain and suffering that the animals are subjected to regularly. In the lab, there are little to no rules regarding the safety and well-being of animal subjects; the only restraints lie within a single Federal law called the Animal Welfare Act. An article written by the providers at the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS) explains that “It [the AWA] does not prohibit any kind of