The Public Perceptions Of Animal Research

There has also been studies that have proved animal activist are extreme sometimes. The President of (PETA) a known organization once told Vogue that, “If animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS we would be against it”. This is the same disease that affected 36.7 million people globally in the year of 2015. Animal testing is what scientist need to find cures for the human race and their diseases and without it we wouldn't be as evolved as we are now.

After Conducting my audience analysis, I found that 5 out of 9 members of my audience are neither against or for Animal testing. Two members of my audience are for animal testing and the last two believe it shouldn’t even be allowed. After looking at this information I have concluded that my target audience will be those who are indecisive on whether animal testing is or isn’t a problem, as well as the ones that approve testing on animals. By knowing whom my audience is going to be, I decided that my speech will be a strengthening commitment speech. I want to convince those that are not completely against it, that we have different alternatives that can be used and that animals should not be put through such

While most of our American population values these achievements and understanding about the nature of animals for humans gain. So many debates over animal experimentation is just a primarily a philosophical. By releasing this into the public it has resulted in legislation and animal rights organizations that continue to fight for additional changes to policies. The concern of animal experimentation has increased for cosmetics and for other personal care items due the pressure of animal rights groups. Pharmaceutical, food additives and garden chemicals have to be tested on animals before on humans, and this is only in the United

The controversy behind animals as research subjects is mainly one of morals and the ethical treatment of said animals. Many people believe we should use them in this way, so we aren 't actually harming people in the pursuit for better things for humans. Though animal testing was a viable resource for many years, it has proven to be extremely controversial and unethical, therefor the use of animals as research subjects should be outlawed.

The animal experimentation is very difficult issue with a lot of people feeling very strongly of it, we are use the animals for the experimentation in different way, one of most big problem is for test the cosmetics, the images of animals with things put in their eyes for so we are able to look a bit better make many people very angry. Is it necessary?

In the article Defending Animal Research, it starts off explaining how scientist who use animals for their research are becoming targets of many people who are against animal testing. There has been many incidents where people have placed car bombs on the scientists vehicles and sent these men and women blades in the male.

When I first started to contemplate my position on this topic I hadn’t really realized the magnitude or the amount of controversy that surrounds animal research and testing. When I started to search for content to include in my paper I read many articles on the subject and I was amazed to find that being involved in this field can be a dangerous job. In an article titled Defending Animal Research I was shocked to read that some extremist groups are willing to harm property and human beings in order to get their point across. It was noted that since 1990-2012 that there have been 220 attacks on individual’s who participate in animal research studies. This number has increased from 9% to 46% over this time period. I understand and respect the

Controversy is a disagreement that usually occurs when one or both sides has a strong disagreement towards another sides opinion. Common controversial topics can range from issues such as abortion to issues such as marriage equality; whichever the case, we encounter controversial discussions daily. One topic that I tend to encounter more so than others is the discussion regarding animal experimentation. I live as a vegetarian, a lifestyle I have been living for approximately 2 years, and due to this identity I tend to find myself surrounded by other friends who live the vegetarianism or veganism lifestyle. Most of our conversation topics revolve around animal rights and where people should “draw the line” so to speak, in our society. So, for

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.

Some groups that are on the supporting side of animal testing are Understanding Animal Research and Speaking of Research. In Understanding Animal Research, there are people like Wendy Jerrett, the Chief Executive, who has been working in health communications for almost 30 years. One of their main arguments is that “ while non-animal methods play an important part of biomedical research, they cannot replace all use of animals.” This statement does make sense, however, through research I have not found anything that cannot be altered to replace animal testing. Despite this, Speaking of Research brings up a good argument that can support the former one. People in Speaking of Research include Christine Archer, who is a registered veterinary technician. One of their arguments is that “ The success of many animal rights groups’ campaigns depend heavily upon the poor public understanding of animal research, uncountered misrepresentations of scientists and their work, and exploitation of the misconceptions and negative perceptions that many people have of the use of animals in the biomedical and behavioral sciences.” So, by their way of thinking, all the negative opinions about animal experimentation are only because of misunderstandings and the uneducated public.

Are you allowing yourself to ignore the unnecessary, unethical, and inaccurate experiments and tests that are being done to innocent animals every single day? Scientists, doctors, and other experimenters do physical and mental tests on animals in search of answers. Over time the horrible practices that were, and still are, happening to these animals on a daily bases were slowly opened to the public and it seems like no one wanted to believe it. Slowly these ways are being stopped but there are still labs testing these animals with no sympathy. Animal testing is unnecessary, unethical, and inaccurate because humans are totally different than animals, there are other possible ways to find answers, and the experiments done on

There are people who protest and are against animal research. People that see only one side of things but yet not the other. The other side being the pros, why we benefit from it. People think that the cons out way the pros or just don't care wether or not it benefits us. What some people don't know is over the years though animal research has played a vital part in nearly every breakthrough. Such as cancers, Tb, flu, and asthma are all common diseases that we have in common with animals.

When a person is asked if testing on animals for scientific research is ethical, many people can be divided on the answer to the question. Scientific testing has been a norm in research since the advent of main stream science. For me this is a simple question with a simple answer which is, yes. With groups like PETA, would only tell people their side of the issue, which is that testing on animals is a sin or that it is always done in awful ways.

The people who support animal testing more than anyone else are the people who use them in everyday life. Scientist strongly agree in using animals for testing. “In 2011 the respected journal Nature conducted a poll of 1,000 scientists in the field of biomedics.” “More than 90% felt that it was essential to use animals for research testing.” “It is not only scientists who support this stance. The American Heart Association and the Society of Toxicology have, amongst others, backed the use of animal testing.” (listland) In all aspects of life the advancement of research using animals as test subjects is the best way for scientists to find cures to human diseases.

The battle over whether it is justified for animals to be used for research is vicious. Animal activist organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) release gory images of animals that are deemed harmless (such as rabbits or puppies) in order to aid their argument that animal testing is inhumane. Those who support animal testing question the validity of the photos, countering the argument with statistical information of the good that animal experimentation has done, for humans and animals alike. In the center of the debate is the portion of the scientific community that relies on animal testing to prove that the substances that they created will not be harmful to people. In the scientists’ view, the method has no