Summary Of Latham's Room For Reform

Using animals for medical experimentation and education is a controversial subject that often leads to a heated debate. The issues are complex, but the suffering and waste involved in animal experimentation are painfully obvious. Vivisection, the act of cutting into a live animal, has led the nation down countless scientific dead ends, while detracting funds and attention from more applicable scientific research. The practice of animal experimentation at NYU continues, not because it has been proven to be an accurate and reliable means of research (which it has not) but rather, because of tradition and promotion from those with strong vested interests (i.e. Lynne Kiorpes). These values have

(Animal Laws) Even though England kicked off the idea of anti-cruelty with their laws in 1910, that made it necessary to take careful records of numbers of animals used for testing. Not only in the testing facilities but also in the the farm, laws were passed. Humane Methods of Slaughter Act required slaughter houses to stun animals before slaughtering. (Animal Testing) Despite the wide-spread thought that animal testing facilities are filled with cages and unethical methods, most if not all are now under strict rulings, that they are very cleanly. Almost hospital like. Dick Biancos a biomedical researcher invites high school students into his lab to see the just and sterile ways they animal test. To show them how a animal testing facility actually runs, not what they assume from stories. (Decline in Support of Using Animals).

Research Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit” writer Michael Moss clearly states that the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC), which is financed by our own American taxpayers, has one major goal—namely, to gain profit for meat producing companies in a time of dietary alteration (Moss). He further explains that even though this company is providing great benefits for our market, the animals are paying a greater cost. Many professionals are involved in these inhumane experiments, whether they agree or disagree, such as James Keen, a scientist and veterinarian who worked for the center for 24 years; “They pay tons of attention to increasing animal production, and just a pebble-sized concern to animal welfare” (Moss). Dr. Keen their employee of many years clearly admits to the mistreatment of animals (Moss). He continues: “And it probably looks fine to them because they’re not thinking about it, and they’re not being held accountable” (Moss). Although Dr. James Keen may seem trivial, he’s objection is in fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over the laws under the Animal Welfare Act being applied and shared equally for the humane treatment of

Latham argues that “Perhaps more important, though, is the fact that the existing regulatory structure, imperfect though it may be, is elastic enough to accommodate substantial changes that could reduce unnecessary animal testing” (35). Latham accomplished his purpose thoroughly in supporting this as he organized all of the information properly, provides many examples of background facts, and presents information on other country’s animal testing laws, as well as in depth explanations justifying his ideas on how he believes reform can be achieved pertaining to animal experimentation laws and standards.

Summary/Description: This book discusses the pros and cons of animal testing. It gives a brief history of the animal right movement, and It also address the legal and ethical issues involved around this cruel testing. The Animal Act was rejected by Congress in the United States and animal testing became a part of scientific and medical life.

This dichotomy remains relevant as certain groups of animal rights activists continue to progress research towards more humane protocol (Galvin & Herzog, 1992), while research advocates believe such practices are necessary and should involve less hindrances in order to fulfill research goals (Lyons, 2011). Precedent suggests that the majority of surveyors support animal research due to its benefits in furthering medical applications (Dolan, 2002; Lund, Morkbak, Lassen, & Sandoe, 2014), yet animal rights advocates have endured a historic conflict. Such advocates have perpetuated paradigmatic discussion for contemplating the weaknesses in animal research policies (e.g. the subjective scaling of research severity – mild, moderate, severe) (Lyons, 2011). When analyzing the perspectives of advocates and adversaries through history and studies, the ability to determine the ethicality of animal research is impossible. More legislation against animal research is not necessarily the answer, but one political solution has been to settle the dissension through a personalized assessment of individual cases (Rollins, 2006). If animal research continues, a case-by-case analysis of research studies is the only ethical manner to appease the tension between advocates and adversaries.

An intense and polarizing deliberation concerning the issue of animal experimentation and the utilization in research has been raging for years. This issue often catches newspaper headlines and strikes the heart of the American public. The opinion of advocates of animal research and the opinion of those who oppose it are quite visible in the media. Both sides tirelessly strive in advancing their unique beliefs. So far as this discussion is specifically focused on the attainment of favorable legislation by one side or the other, special interest groups have been formed by both parties in order to sway the legislators and numerous bureaucrats to their desired side. The frequently hostile dispute regarding animal testing has grown since

The government has placed few laws in order to prevent inhumane experiments. These laws explain how to correctly treat animals. For example, scientists need to treat the animals with respect and care. One article states “When animal use is necessary, it should be carried out humanely and with concern for the comfort, general health, and well-being of the animals by scientist and staff who are qualified and trained to do the work successfully. These concerns have been codified in The Animal Welfare Act and Guide for the Care and Use of Animals in the United States” (“Using”). To summarize that statement, scientists and staff involved in animal experimentation must do such work and humanely carry out the medicine on their subjects. However,

All around the world, we use animal testing to develop new treatments, cures to crippling diseases, and to make sure products are safe for human use. In fact, approximately 26 million animals are tested on in the United States per year. This type of research has been practiced since before 500 B.C. Up until 1966, when the Animal Welfare Act was passed, this type of testing wasn’t regulated. Because of this, our testing methods have become cruel and remorseless. These days, animal testing has evolved into something horrifying and it should not be used nearly as much as it is.

All across the united states animal testing is being discussed over. People are discussing the treatment of all different varieties of animal species. The controversy has erupted about how animals are being treated, how we should handle it, and what should be done about it.

In the early 1920’s animal experimentation was crudely developed for testing and evaluating products and medicines. Animals, such as rodents, are injected with certain medicines or fed specific ingredients found in these products. Many results from these testings include pain and suffering for the animal experimented on. I believe that animal experimentation should have restrictions. These experiments can be important in discoveries relating to cures for diseases and other medications, but many animals are being harmed for the cause and treated as objects that can be used and disposed of.

Over 100 million animals in 2015 including rodents, dogs and cats have been killed and tortured in the laboratories of the United States of America (reference). Debates have been erupting during the past few years concerning the experimentations done on animals. Many animal right organizations have stood up against testing cosmetics, medications, and certain chemicals on these living creatures. This essay will be covering an argument against the experimentations done on animals ethically and scientifically and the disagreements regarding such concern.

All over history, is written the advancements of medicine and technology through the involvement of animal experimentation. Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Erasistratus (304-258 BC) both performed numerous experiments on live animals for the advancement of human intellect. Helpless animals had to suffer through surgeries and multiple experiments for the benefit of human knowledge. Today, there are certain laws that have been set by the United States legislature that “insure that certain animals intended for use in research facilities are provided humane care and treatment” (Animal Welfare Act). The distinction between “humane care and treatment” on paper, and “humane care and treatment” in reality, has such a magnanimous boundary, that on

Each year there are more than 100 million animals used for experimentation in the United States (Experiments on Animals: Overview). These animals are subjected to appalling conditions during the research period. They are locked up in cramped quarters, denied basic rights, and forced into agonizing experimentation; often times with little prevail, for the benefit of humans. Animal experimentation should be stopped because not only is it morally wrong, but also the results are typically inaccurate and it could be replaced by alternative methods.

Animal testing is an extremely controversial topic because it deals with delicate matters and matters of humanity. Animal testing is intended to help consumers buy safe and healthy products, but they are torturing innocent animals by doing so. People that are in favor of animal testing usually are also advocates for medical research and progress, though there have been other proven methods of research. But they don’t think of it as tormenting and killing animals. On the other hand, a lot of people are compassionate about animals and think that testing on them is inhumane. These advocates of the animals think that an animal’s safety should be put