Should It Be Absolutely Necessary? Test Something On An Animal?

The authors emphasize in reduction, replacement and refinement of animal use in experiments, which is referred as “3 Rs” principles. These principles encouraged researchers to work to lessen the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum, limit the pain and replace use of animals with non animal alternatives when possible. It provides awareness to the subject matter of animal testing, raising serious ethical and scientific issues.

Have you ever wanted to go into space? Well, many animals did during the beginning of the Space Race and it was very necessary. This was because we did not know if we could even survive in space. We also did not have the technology to figure it out digitally. Another reason why it was necessary was that we had many questions we wanted questions for on how our body would react in space. With these 3 reasons and evidence to go with them, I will show why sending animals into space was necessary.

Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures, treatments, and major advances in understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, childhood leukemia, brain injuries, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. Using animals as research subjects is appropriate because they are similar to human beings in many ways.

Is Animal testing necessary? Yes or No? Animal testing in the space race was necessary because they needed to know if humans would be able to survive in space. A dog did go to space to orbit earth but, the dog did indeed die. They did find out what went wrong. In my opinion animal testing was sometimes necessary.

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

Animals can be burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused as a result of testing. And the list could go on forever. The way animals are being mistreated and tested on should be against the law. There is a different ways to do research other than killing and abusing animals. There are many alternate test that scientist can use to do there research without harming animals. Alternative test are defined as test that use the three “R’s”, a test that replaces a procedure that uses animals with one that doesn’t, a test that reduces the number of animals used in a procedure, and test that refine a procedure to cause less pain to the animal.(11 Facts about…)

The experiment performed by Harry Harlow involves the ethics of experimenting on animals, more specifically monkeys. What he did to the monkeys could be called worse than giving them certain drugs or exposing them to certain chemicals. He took the baby rhesus monkeys away from their maternal parents only a few hours after birth and raised them using a fake, “substitute” mother. He wanted to see if the monkeys were more attracted to a mother who would provide them with food and nourishment, or one that would give them love and affection.

In this essay I will outline and defend the argument for complete abolition of the use of animals in biomedical research. I will ultimately agree with Tom Regan’s claim that “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources.” I will describe DeGrazia’s and Carruthers’ important objections to Regan’s claim as well as Regan and Singer’s responses. I will show that none of the objections overcomes Regan’s central argument.

In support of this, over the years, Sydney University has used marmosets in experiments in which “Their eyes were removed for testing. The animals were then put down”(Panahi 2). No experiment is so vital that colleges have to take the eyes of hundreds of monkeys, then kill them when they've finished. Isn’t this why people all over the US donate their bodies to research? Yes, because these people are giving permission to do research and experiments on them when they become diseased, so that innocent creatures don’t have to. In addition, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) home office states “In 2013 there were 4,121,582 licensed scientific experiments carried out on 4,017,758 animals, some of which experienced ‘distressing and disturbing’ procedures”(Connor 1). Too high, way to high of a number when it represents the amount of animals living in distraught. For these animals, their lives are sitting in a cage and being taken out on a daily bases to be given shots, and possibly never waking up from anesthesia given. Some people say that it’s not enough to test cells in a petri dish, that scientists need something with an immune system and central nervous system to test products. On the contrary, primates are genetically similar to humans as “With the same high cognitive abilities, which makes the attractive to

According to The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, published by William Russell and Rex Burch in 1959, there are 3 important principles when it comes to animal testing and research. These principles: reduction, refinement, and replacement are typically known as the “3 R’s.” Reduction is meant to minimize the number of animal used in experimental procedures, refinement aims to limit the animal’s exposure to pain, and replacement is designed to use non-animal options whenever possible. While the problem with animal testing is constantly brought to people’s attention, the number of animals used for research is still increasing to this day. It is questionable whether these principles sufficiently reflect the development in our knowledge about animals and their emotional capabilities, the interest of these animals, or the harm that corresponds. It also raises serious questions about the success rate of the predicted outcomes of animal testing.

In Harry Harlow’s experiment in “Monkey Love”, Harlow conducted an experiment on testing monkeys for human use. Harlow wanted to test out different acts on the monkey to see their reaction. He would separate the monkeys from their mom and replace them with a mother made of a soft cloth. The baby monkeys showed all their love to the mother made of cloth because they were empty inside missing their birth mother. Harlow was amaze by the monkey’s reactions on the soft cloth mother. And yet that still did not satisfied him he made it harder for the monkeys when he added another mother who would dispenser milk. As, he did this, this caused the monkey a lot of confusion. The monkeys loved the soft cloth mother and will go with the dispenser mother when they got hungry well they still were holding on to the soft cloth mother. This caused the monkeys to feel discomfort and harm that should have not been caused. Harlow conducted this experiment to test out monkeys for human use. My point is that animals testing is not necessary and will lead to death and unnecessary expensive. These types of testing on animal are cruel and should not be conducted.

The focus of animal research has been characterized by three criteria, The Three R’s. “’The Three Rs’ are reduction, replacement and refinement. Here in the US, research communities are committed to supporting techniques that reduce the number of higher species used, replace animals with other models wherever/whenever possible, and refine tests to ensure the most humane conditions possible.” (Trull 2). Scientists try to keep the animals from being harmed as much as possible.

Peter Singer’s argument for determining when animal experiments are justified is stated in his papers “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research”. His argument in regards to animal experimentation and speciesism is very thought provoking and makes the readers review their own biases regarding human/animal relations. Although some of the ideas the author brings forward, such as using mentally retarded or orphaned babies for experimentation, are radical, they do make one think about the biases we have as a species. Also, his thoughts on mammals and birds ability to feel pain being

Animal experimentation by scientists can be cruel and unjust, but at the same time it can provide long term benefits for humanity. Animals used in research and experiments have been going on for 2,000 years and keep is going strong. It is a widely debated about topic all over the world. Some say it is inhuman while others say it’s for the good of human kind. There are many different reasons why people perform experiments and why others total disagree with it.