Tests On Animals example essay topic

And Justice for All These things are happening in laboratories around the world according to Elshtain: The wings of 74 mallard ducks are snapped to see whether crippled birds can survive in the wild. (They can t.) Infant monkeys are deafened to study their social behavior, or turned into amphetamine addicts to see what happens to their stress level. Monkeys are separated from their mothers, kept in isolation, addicted to drugs, and induced to commit aggressive acts. Pigs are blowtorch ed and observed to see how they respond to third degree burns.

No painkillers are used. Monkeys are immersed in water and vibrated to cause brain damage. For thirteen years, baboons have their brains bashed at the University of Pennsylvania as research assistants laugh at signs of the animals distress. Monkeys are dipped in boiling water; other animals are shot in the face with high powered rifles (Elshtain, 432-433).

These are the things that are happening in labs around the world are both inhumane and totally inappropriate. Animals do not deserve and are not here for us to kill and inflict pain upon for any of our so-called human needs. The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites, or women for men. Animals, or as some consider simply as human's food, coats, and lab tools, experience emotions and pain just at human beings do.

Cruelty to innocent humans is considered wrong in society, so what about the animals? Don t they matter? Obviously not because no real effort is being made to stop the use of animals for human needs. Animals, as part of our earth, need to be protected from these selfish human acts of evil and we must help to liberate them since they cannot liberate themselves.

An animal's place is not to be trapped in an expensive cage within the doors of a laboratory, being exposed to unnecessary, horrible experiments at the expense of our taxes and us. An animal's place is in the fields of tall green grass with easy access to fresh, clean air. However, on the other hand, supporters of animal testing claim that these tests save lives but really only lives are being lost. Animal testing is wrong for many reasons. It violates the lives and rights of living, breathing beings, it is useless and unnecessary, and lastly it throws money down the drain. Supporters of animal testing, such as Dr. Joseph Murray believes that, It's absolutely essential for the health of society (Ross, 26).

Like Dr. Murray, others also believe that animal testing is needed to save and protect humans. For example, by testing shampoos, cosmetics, and using animals to research medical problems, such as diseases or to test medicines to see if they are effective (Ross, 28). Those in favor of animal experimentation feel that animals have no rights because unlike humans, animals are not rational; they do not possess a verbal language, and lastly are not objects of moral concern (Rollin, 11). Therefore, animals in the eyes of supporters of animal testing were put on this planet for our use. For us to eat, wear, and experiment on. Dr. John Miller, a veterinarian and director of animal welfare at NIH (National Institute of Health), believes that animals can t feel pain (Rollin, 39).

He also states, In the overwhelming majority of cases, at least 99 percent of animals are treated humanely and appropriately (Rollin, 40). First of all, how can blow torching a pig be humane and appropriate? It can t, and despite of what people say testing on innocent animals is uncalled for. In Ron Karpati's essay, I am the Enemy, he states that, Life if often cruel both to animals and human beings (429). He goes on to talk about teenagers getting thrown from the backs of moving trucks, and infants drowning in swimming pools while their parents check the mail. Life is cruel to animals and humans but all these things mentioned about are not intentional, but mere accidents.

Accidents and terrible things occur in innocent people and animals lives, but animal testing is no accident. Animals have not control over what humans use them for. In Peter Singer's essay, Animal Liberation, he raises an important question: Would we be prepared to let thousands of humans die if they could be saved by a single experiment on a single animal? (421).

First of all, this question is hypothetical. There never has been and never will be a single experiment done on animals that could save thousands of lives. Lastly, in Bill Breen's article, Why We Need Animal Testing, he supports animal experimentation by saying, Almost all living organisms live at the expense of other organisms. Certain tree species grow faster than others, thus winning the competition for sunlight.

Chimpanzees in the wild have been known to feed on smaller primates. The developer's bulldozer kills innumerable invertebrates. Each species, rat, and boy continually wage it's own quest for survival (45). But the difference with trees competing for sunlight and sticking harmful chemicals into rabbit's eyes and injecting drugs into goat's brains in that the things mentioned above are completely natural. To better understand and to be able to take a stand on the issue, you must first know the basic facts of animal experimentation to get an overall view on the issue.

Primarily, the word vivisection is the practice of experimenting on live animals. Each year in the U.S., tens of millions of animals are killed in experiments that often do not purport to be linked to human health. Many crude and frivolous experiments are duplicated because there is not central information system that lists data from previous experiments (Rollin, 54). First of all, who conducts these tests? Government agencies, chemical and pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, universities, the military and manufacturers of cosmetics and household products conduct most animal experiments (Rowan, 77). The National Institute of Health (NIH), funded by the U.S. taxpayers is the largest single finance of animal tests done in the world, and the prospect of receiving grant money from NIH sustains many a vivisector's interest in perpetuating his or her career (Rollin, 33).

Secondly, what kinds of animals are used in experiments? Mice, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, ferrets, cats, dogs, primates, sheep, cows, and pigs are common laboratory victims. They suffer from confinement, stress, pain and fear. The federal Animal Welfare Act covers only housekeeping standards and does not regulate or prohibit any experimental procedure no matter how frivolous or painful (Kerven, 62). Lastly, what kinds of animal tests are conducted? Tens of millions of animals are subjected every year to experiments that blind, poison, mutilate, shock, and burn them.

Some tests lasts for hours or even years. Chimpanzees are kept for their lifetimes in AIDS and hepatitis studies. Dogs from pounds and shelters may end up cut open and inadequately anesthetized on medical school operating tables (Kerven, 91). Each year, thousands of animals die in Procter & Gamble laboratories the victims of painful product tests. Procter & Gamble claims to be committed to eliminating tests on animals, but after a decade of empty promises, the household, personal care, and pharmaceutical product manufacturer continues to poison and kill animals. On June 30, 1999, P&G announced that it would end animal tests only for products currently on the market.

The new policy leaves P&G lagging behind its competitors like Gillette, which has not animal tested any products for three years, and Colgate, which in February 1999 announced a moratorium on animal testing that extends to new ingredients. P&G was caught red handed recently when PETA learned that the company had killed rats in unnecessary tests aimed at comparing the performances of its Crest toothpaste to Enamel on, a competitor's product. Other companies, including Colgate, Amway, Gillette, and Tom's of Maine, have developed non-animal test methods to replace the crude rat tests used by P&G and have submitted them to the Food and Drug Administration for approval (Ross, 87). More than 550 companies, including large corporations like Gillette and Avon, ensure their customers safety by using more accurate non-animal tests. Yet, P&G has refused to stop animal tests even for products that are not required to be tested on animals by law, such as cosmetics and household goods, which make up the majority of P&G's products.

Moreover, P&G has done nothing to push the federal government to keep up with the times and to accept non-animal tests for pharmaceuticals (Ross, 93). Animal test are not accurate and data from them cannot be extrapolated to human use because of the enormous differences in metabolism and physiology among rats, rabbits, dogs, pigs, and humans. The stressful laboratory conditions and often-sloppy handling methods can impair immune function and alter heart and pulse rates of animals in laboratories as well. More than half of all prescription drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985 on the strength of animal tests caused side effects so serious that the drugs had to be relabeled or removed from the market (Elshtain, 56). Animals have the same rights as humans to enjoy their lives, to be with their companions, and to perform their natural behaviors in their own environment.

They have the right not to have fear and pain inflicted on them for our use. If animals believed in a god, they would look at a human as the devil, is a saying that is adorned on t-shirts along with the horrifying picture of a screeching monkey, which is very much true. The way we treat and use animals is evil. Peter Singer agrees by saying, We tolerate cruelties inflicted on members of other species that would outrage us if preformed on members of our own species.

Speci sm allows researchers to regard the animals they experiment on as items of equipment, laboratory tools, rather than living suffering creatures (418). In a sense, humans are also animals though we call them nonhumans animals in order to separate ourselves from them so that we will feel less uncomfortable exploiting them. Much as slave-owners convinced themselves that black people did not have the same physical and emotional feelings as white people, we have in our minds that if we reduce animals to nonhumans to say that they are incapable of experiencing pain, love, joy, sadness, or any other emotions. We have convinced ourselves that animals are less intelligent than humans. Indeed, characteristics such as intelligence, awareness, and selfless concern for the welfare of others is found in humans, but some species have a greater capacity for these abilities that some humans. Even so, these criteria should not matter in our interactions with others.

As Jeremy Bentham, 19th century Professor of Philosophy of Law at Oxford University said, The question is not can they reason, nor can they talk but rather, can they suffer? (Rowan, 48). We should know by our own encounters with animals to that they do have feelings and can experience pain. When you pet a cat and it purrs that means he or she is happy. When a dog is sad it whimpers.

When a dog is angry it barks and growls and if a cat is mad it hisses. When an animal gets scared or hurts it does feel pain. The cries he or she lets out, the movement of the animal's body and just the look of discomfort or distress in its eyes can confirm that animals do feel pain. All these feelings and emotions are apart of life.

It is maybe not a human life as we know it but it is still a life. A life that deserves respectful treatment no matter how valuable we consider them. If the abolition of animal research means there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it. We have no basic right not to be harmed by those natural diseases we are heir to. Medical research on animals is hypocritical. We cannot say that we need these tests to save lives because in the process we are taking lives.

Chris D eRose, the head of Last Chance for Animals, claims, A life is a life. If the death of one rat cured all diseases it wouldn t make a difference to me (Reese, 27). Do animal experiments save human lives? Is animal testing really necessary? Are animals the only things that can be tested on? The answer to each of these questions is no.

In countless cases, animal experiments hurt rather than help us. For example, potentially harmful chemicals are often kept on the market because animal tests are inconclusive. Substances that were tested on animals and determined safe have caused dangerous side effects when administered to human patients. Besides, human suffering cannot be stopped by animal experiments. Elshtain, the author of Why Worry About the Animals states, Lab infliction of suffering animals will not keep people healthy in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

250,000 children die each week around the world. One quarter of these deaths are by dehydration due to diarrhea (438). Why? I ask why with all the research that has been done we still do not a cure for cancer. Animal tests are supposed to protect and save lives. What they really do is nothing positive.

They are useless. They kill animals, waste time and money. Elshtain explains, Americans have been trying since 1984 to infect chimpanzees with AIDS, but after the expenditure of millions of dollars, AIDS has not been induced in any nonhuman animal. Why continue down this obviously flawed route? (438). Many alternatives to animal experiments have been developed, including clinical and epidemiological studies, cell and tissue cultures, mathematical, computer and mechanical models and audiovisual guides.

In Rollin's book Animal Rights and Human Mortality, he points out that, If a computer can send a man to the moon, can it not model a mouse? (104) Alternatives to testing are quicker, cheaper, more precise and much simpler. Wolf Lighter, a microbiologist from the University of Miami, replies, We do it all in vitro- in glass. The approach is quick, cheaper than housing, feeding and caring for the animals, and in some cases gives the experimenter more control over the test conditions (Ross, 7). Non-animal methods could be used but there is a greed and lack of imagination among the medical community, who prevents such change.

That kind of change could save the animals and still broaden our field of medical science. However, change will be difficult to achieve because researchers cannot break old habits, bad science, unreflective cruelty, profit and also a fear that animal testing will stop dead in it's tracks. Animal testing isn t cheap. While tens of millions of animals die and an estimated $7 billion is spent every year to confine them and make them sick, many people with crippling illnesses are unable to obtain adequate health care, drug and alcohol addiction treatment centers must turn away addicts for lack of funds and mental health care funding has been slashed to the bone. If we are going to spend tons of money, we might as well use it effectively and spend it to help and educate people rather than kill innocent animals. Brebner explains, that a high-fat diet has been linked to breast cancer, for example, and suggests that dollars might be better spent on education than on research (Reese, 32).

Some research requires such expensive and sophisticated equipment, that only a few institutions have the staff, facilities, and money to support it. Such as the National Institute of Mental Health spends 30 million a year on painful animal research (Elshtain, 433). Not only do labs spend large amounts of money on the research work alone, but also improved security systems for the protection of the laboratories from the break-ins preformed by animal-rights activists. These labs could not do these experiments at their own expense. The public provides a big chunk of the money spent to perform these inhumane experiments. We as the people have the rights to say and direct where our money goes.

Either the money goes to buy stainless steel cages costing $4,000 each to trap and keep innocent science experiments (animals) or to use that money to educate. Alex Mun the makes a good point: The wild cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. He is in front of it (Rollin, 49). Indeed, animal testing is wrong and uncalled for. Animals like humans, experience emotions and pain, and deserve every right not to be treated like they don t count. Animal tests do not need to be preformed because alternatives are available, but a large portion of today's scientific field refuses to use them.

Money also contributes to this issue. Experiments done on animals are very expensive and our taxes go towards these evil tortures upon life. How can we do this to living creatures that are apart of our earth and think it is o. k?? What kind of world are we creating for our children if we kill and torture animals that could be our kids pets simply for our use? This kind of treatment of other living beings shows how we take life for granted and it lessens the value of life, as we perceive it.

Brebner agrees by saying, One day a child is dissecting a frog and then ten years later, he may see nothing wrong with burning a pig with a blowtorch in a scientific experiment (28). We need and must try to eliminate the use of animals as a whole, whether it is in experiments, in the things we wear or eat and treat them with respect. WE must fight against the spirit of unconscious cruelty with which we treat animals. True humanity does not allow us to impose such suffering on them just because we believe that we are more important than animals.

However, we have come to late for this realization that animal testing is not improving our lives but killing of species of our very own earth. We need to break our old habits and come to an understanding that animals are much like humans. It is our duty, as beings capable of making moral choices to make the whole world recognize that we have to live more compassionate lives by not contributing to the suffering of others with whom we share the world. Justice demands no less.

Bibliography

Breen, Bill. Why We Need Animal Testing. New York: Morrow, 1994.
Elshtain, Jean Bethe. Why Worry About the Animals? New York: Harper, 1995.
Karpati, Ron. I am the Enemy. New York: Harper, 1994.
Reese, Diana. Of Mice and Men. New York: Neal, 1996.
Rollin, Bernard E. Animal Rights and Human Mortality. New York: Prometheus Books, 1998.
Ross, Nancy. Is Science Trading Lives? New York: Norton, 1999.
Rowan, Andrew N. Of Mice, Models, and Men. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. Boston: Beacon, 1997.