Ruthless Or Progressive Animal Testing

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.

Animal testing has risen as an extremely controversial topic among scientists and animal rights activists. Many see it as a necessary part of finding cures for thousands of diseases. On the other hand, animal rights activists believe it is an inhumane, harsh, and unnecessary flaw in science. The argument can go back and forth but I believe animal testing should not be used in today’s technically advanced era. The laws are flawed, the failures are evident, and the available alternatives prove that animal testing should be indefinitely banned for future science experiments.

“Animals undergoing testing can be subjected to torture and suffering” (Humanity, 2017, p. 1). Some animals may be cured of their ailments and diseases, but not all. In some cases, the animal dies do to the treatment. Humane treatment of the animals is a valid concern, so the use of them in experiments has been greatly regulated. “This has led to the 3Rs campaign, which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use products” (Hajar, 2011, p. 1). The Animal Welfare Act was signed to protect certain animals from cruel treatment, but the animals chosen for testing aren’t covered by this act. Many people believe that animal testing is unethical since animals are

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.

Animal Experimentation has been dated as far back as to the Early Greek Era. This practice has been viewed as ethical by research scientists trying to find new medical breakthroughs. Yet, in recent years, the use of animals in research and experimentation has been frowned upon by animal protection groups and animal rights activists. Animals are protected by certain guidelines and ethics prior to their use in research. Contrary to popular belief, animal experimentation should be viewed on a positive note, due to the fact that it can benefit human life, reduce adverse effects on humans, and the cost is cheaper and easier.

Mohandas K. Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. What, then, does it say about the people of the United States, for allowing the deaths of millions of innocent animals for the benefit of research, that in most cases is not even useful? 100 million animals are killed each year due to animal testing or experimentation (PETA,1). In the past, it was acceptable to use animal testing for scientific research, but now that there are other viable alternatives to the testing of innocent animals, such as in-vitro, stem cell testing, non-incasing imaging techniques, and micro-dosing. Animal testing should only be used in cases where said drug or treatment will treat life-threatening diseases. Animal testing in this day and age is both unnecessary and cruel, as there are multiple alternatives and the most of the time is not useful in human research.

A majority of humans will show immense respect towards scientists and researchers. Their education and profound knowledge are praised in advancing our health care, households and human life in general. These successful studies however, may have included some form of harmful animal suffering to achieve the objectives of human growth and development. Some may argue that animal testing is morally essential in our ever-growing society as it allows researchers to determine progressive factors in not only the human species but the animal species as well (Rollin

Over the past few decades, animals have been enduring unimaginable pain and fear due to being used to test the everyday products we use. And as unfortunate as it sounds, animals simply do not have the choice in these cruel experiments scientist put them through. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, “sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing” (Orlans There will always be different points of views on this troubling topic, some may be against it because they see animals as their companions or some may support it because they only see animals as objects to move forward with science and experimental

The supporters of this concept argue that computers can be unreliable in giving accurate results or information on issues related to cells, environment or molecules (Christopher 17). Animal testing has therefore been used to give very reliable and substantial scientific information in the last century. On the other hand, opponents or individuals who challenge the concept of animal experimentation argue that animals, like humans, feel and experience pain and should not be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering. Furthermore, they posit that animals used for research are often subjected to cruel and traumatizing conditions, therefore, negating fundamental animal rights. Moreover, other arguments indicate that animals should be respected because they have natural rights just like all other beings (Hackman

Numerous years ago, animal testing was started to help humans obtain information. The process of testing on animals is, quite possibly, one of the most disturbing experiments ever performed. Many cosmetics and personal care products are manufactured every year and put into the market

While certain animals are tested for medical reasons, some are used to test cosmetics. Cosmetic products include makeup items, perfumes, hair products, makeup brushes, lotions, soaps, etc.. “Alternatives to Animal Testing” states “Regulatory agencies require testing of consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals to identify potential health and safety hazards”, meaning that testing of some kind is required before cosmetics can be sold. If makeup was not tested, it could be sold to millions of people and possibly cause harm. The damage caused by untested cosmetics could result in companies losing an incredible amount of money, and lessening said companies’ reliability. Animals seem to be an easy and accessible way to test

Animal research has led to numerous improvements for the quality of life in humans and other animals. The humane treatment of animals requires that if there is an alternative way of getting the same results, without using animals, then that should be done. Reducing the number of animals used for research would result in an increase in humans being used for research; therefore, it is not reasonable to decrease the number of test animals. Humans cannot justify an objection to killing an animal involved in a biomedical investigation if they are willing to eat animals. The killing of an animal to meet the needs of human beings is judged as reasonable by most people. The enormous amount of benefits to human beings has made biomedical experimentation on animals justifiable. Non-human animals have non-negligible moral worth. Causing and animal to go through excruciating pain to bring a tinge of pleasure to a human is wrong. Believing there is a moral difference between evil we do and evil we do not prevent must be rejected to make the researchers’ calculations implausible. It is believed that perpetrating and evil is worse than permitting an

In the field of scientific research, animal subjects have become a primary source of medical testing. Investigating the effects of these procedures and chemical experiments to generate evidential conclusions is widely disputed by opposing audiences today. Advocates propose the necessity of animal usage in scientific testing for the advancement of human welfare, while critics argue on behalf of the rights available to such animals used in these procedures. Despite the controversial debates and publications written about this topic, the harsh realities of its practice continue to linger. A statistic often supplemented to the context of this issue, reported by the nonprofit organization PETA, says “More than 100

Many argue that animal testing is misleading or unsafe and some even believe there are alternatives for all animal research. However, where there are reliable alternatives, most certainly, scientists and many other professionals have used them, that's what the law demands. Advanced computer systems, mathematical models, human tissue and cell cultures can be helpful; but they cannot provide the answers that animal research can (Blakemore, 2008). Moreover, no researcher chooses to use and test on animals where there is no need. Animal research is time consuming and expensive, therefore no scientist gains pleasure from causing an animal suffering and wasting his/her time while doing so. Secondly, critics argue that using animals in the lab to

Every year, millions of animals suffer through painful and unnecessary tests. Animals in laboratories all over the world live lives of deprivation, pain, isolation, and torture. Even though vast studies show that animal experimentation often lacks validity, leading to harmful human reactions, we still continue to use this method of experimentation, while many other less-expensive and more beneficial alternatives exist. Going beyond the issue of animal experimentation being morally wrong, this form of research is also hindering medical progress. Although the use of animals in laboratories is said to be necessary for the welfare and health of humans, people mistakenly believe that this immoral and unscientific method of experimentation is