Opponents To Animal Experimentation example essay topic

An Animal Experimentation uses living animals to find out answers to scientific questions. People in medical research use animals for two main reasons: to make sure that medicines are as safe and effective as possible before doctors give them to people and to find out more about how the body works. Without animal experimentation, many of the most important advances in modern medicine would never have occurred. But for researchers' painstaking work with animal subjects, deadly viruses like rabies and yellow fever could have become modern versions of the Black Death, and our knowledge about human health and physiology would have been drastically limited. Yet the overwhelming benefits of animal experimentation have failed to persuade one group of extremists.

Animal rights activists, motivated by abstract concerns about animal welfare and well-being, have zealously asserted that the use of animals in medical research is morally evil and should be severely curtailed, or even eliminated altogether. Due to the proponents on both sides bringing strong emotions into the issue of animal experimentation, there have been fires and break-ins as well as the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on new alarms and electric locks. However, despite what opponents' incorrectly claim, studies prove that animal experimentation is the best way to insure the well being of humans, since medical studies can be advanced in accurate manner. Opponents of animal experimentation are correct in saying that the psychological testing is inhumane, but are incorrect when preaching about the other methods of research that are available. It is true that the past psychological experiments on animals were unnecessarily cruel, since there was no immediate benefit for humans. Such as the experiment in which scientists designed mechanical surrogate mothers who would eject sharp spikes as the youngsters hugged them, in order "to gauge the effects of child abuse on young monkey" (qty in Cowley 53-54).

However, these types of experiments no longer occur for the most part, because of the recent law passed, governing animal care in laboratories. Nowadays, facilities housing dogs must let them exercise and those housing primates must provide for their psychological well-being. To ensure that this is being done all laboratories are required to set up animal-care committees and submit to annual inspections. Opponents to animal experimentation mistakenly believe that substitute methods such as cell culture and computer modeling should be pursued, rather than research involving animals.

This argument is inherently false. For one, animal experimentation has been around for thousands of years because of how closely related we are to animals. For example, "The genetic package of a chimp varies from our own by no more than 1 percent, most researchers agree" (Cards 57). It would be nice, of course, if there were alternatives to vivisection that could deliver the same benefits without the death and suffering. But there is a limit to what can be accomplished with cell cultures and computer models. The experiments have to be done in a living system, where all the things we don't know about are going on.

Although opponents are truthful when saying that psychological experimentation on animals is cruel, the medical testing on animals is still fair as well as precise. Proponents of animal experimentation are correct in saying how imperative it is to continue animal testing because of how much more valuable human life is than animal life and the importance of finding treatments. It is much less painful to face the consequences of animal subjects than to face the continual suffering experienced by a family loved one. Jane McCabe's nine-year old daughter, Claire, suffers from cystic fibrosis, diseases that can be partially treated by medicines discover through animal experimentation.

The animals that were given the disease did suffer. However, their suffering does not overshadow the human suffering involved. Jane McCabe says, "It's not that I don't love animals, it's just that I love Claire more" (55). In this case, and in countless others, the human suffering was clearly lessened because of animal research findings. As a result, of the animals being experimented on, many human lives have been saved because of the new cures that have been discovered.

The killing of animals under experimentation is with purpose: it has immense practical benefits such as lifesaving treatments. Animal models have advanced the study of such diseases as cancer, diabetes and alcoholism. One such case takes place at the University of California School of Medicine, where monkeys are being infected with the simian AIDS virus, to see whether early treatment with the drug AZT will keep them from developing symptoms. This experiment is an advantage to humans, "Because the monkeys normally get sick with in 10 months of infection-not the three to five years common in humans" (Cowley 52). Meaning that they are able to discover to treatment more rapidly than by testing the treatments on humans, leading to quicker cures for such diseases. When you come right down to it, the animal's lives that are at stake during experiments are not as important as the life of a human and is crucial in developing new and better treatments.

Advocates of animal experimentation are right in saying that the experiments are appropriate because they do in fact lead to the discovery of new cures and advances surgical procedures. Probably one of the strongest arguments that the proponents have against the other opponents of animal experimentation is the fact that countless lives that have been saved because of the cures that have been discovered. One of those lives was my great-grandmother who at a young age was diagnosed with polio, experiencing the early stages of the disease. However, "Vaccines developed through animal research have virtually wiped out diseases like smallpox and polio" (Cowley 51). Therefore, because she was treated while still in the early stages of the disease she is still alive today living a happy and fruitful life at the age of eighty-six.

Another advantage that pertains to animal experimentation, is the newer and better surgical procedures come from the testing. Many experiments on animals are being done to improve medical procedures across the country. One such study has been performed for quite some time at Emory University's Yerkes center, where researchers are performing cataract surgery on healthy baby rhesus monkeys, in an effort to improve post surgical therapies for the human children that undergo the operation. The question that people should ask themselves is whether research should be continued on baby monkeys or we should let our children go blind if they end up with a cataract? The obvious and appropriate answer comes from the argument given in the last paragraph, that we should be more worried about our children becoming blind rather than monkeys who lack language and rational thought.

It is proven as stated by neuro biologist Ronald Boothe that, "By me doing this research, we can prevent them from going blind. Most people, given that choice, will think it's justified" (Cowley 53). Proponents of animal experimentation make it clear that the gains far outweigh the costs. Even though opponents of animal experimentation unconvincingly allege that it is inhumane and that other methods should take precedence in research, the fact still remains that the superior race should be taken into account when deciding the most exact method to progress medically. It has been made clear that those advocates are wrong by declaring animal experimentation as inhumane, and that it should be substituted by other ineffective methods. When in fact the inhumane thing to do, would be to ignore the species made in God's image.

This would eliminate many of the medical advancements made causing countless numbers of humans to suffer and even worse die to save these creatures. There is an alternative to animal experimentation that would please both the animal activists and the scientists. We could use death row inmates as real human guinea pigs. This practice may even act as a greater deterrent against crime than the electric chair, lethal injection, or gas chamber. Since the would be criminal, who lost his right to live, would now be aware that if he chooses to take someone's life he will end up becoming a human guinea pig.