Use Of Animals In Research example essay topic

Each year an estimated 70 million animals in the United States of America and 3 million animals in Britain, are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed ("Animal Testing / Yes or No?" 1). All this is done by private institutions, household product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers ("Animal Testing / Yes or No?" 1). Any being capable of feeling anything, weather it is pain or pleasure or any kind of positive or negative state of consciousness, must be treated with respect (Cothran 34). Animals can feel the pain of shampoo or soap in their eye just as well as any human being can. Also, animals can get frustrated and bored with their lives in their living conditions (Finsen 13). Therefore, in no case whatsoever should an animal be used in cosmetic or in other form of research, also sometimes known as vivisection.

The dictionary definition of vivisection is 'the painful treatment of living animals for the purposes of scientific research. ' ("What is Vivisection" 1). People began to use vivisection on animals more than two thousand years ago (Woods 8). Humans saw animals as lower forms of life and thought that they were only put on earth to serve humans (Guernsey 7). The belief that humans are superior to other creatures is very old. An example of this is in the Bible, God gives humanity power over "the fish of the sea and over the birds in the air... and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth".

(Woods 7). Live creatures, both humans and non-humans, were first used to fulfill the anatomical interests of scientists (Monamy 8). Most people did not think that animals had any feelings so they were treated just like machines (Woods 8). Early experiments were done without the use of any anesthetics so they were very painful (Monamy 8).

But, one scientist, when investigating the anatomy of the brain, preferred to vivisect pigs to avoid seeing the unpleasant expression of the ape (Monamy 8). Finally, in the 19th century people decided that vivisection had to stop (Guernsey 7). So the anti cruelty movement began and, groups started to form (Guernsey 8). There are three main reasons that people began to see animal experimentation as wrong. The first reason is the increase in knowledge about the natural world due to developments in all areas of science (Fox 8). The second is the rise of ecology as a major scientific field, and the resulting changes that began to occur in people's thinking about nature (Fox 8).

The last is the general expanding of moral concern for all living things (Fox 9). The idea that it is morally wrong to eat animals has been around for over a thousand years but there was no political movement during any of these times (Finsen 24). The earliest legislative effort to protect animals from cruelty is actually American (Finsen 42). In 1641 the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay Colony voted to establish the "Bodies of Liberties" which was a document containing one hundred different "liberties" (Finsen 42).

There is one provision that legally Blake 3 protects animals it says, "No man shall exercise any tyranny or cruelty toward any animal". (Finsen 42). According to Thomas Aquinas "Animals lack souls and therefore have no rights, humans have souls and therefore shall be given rights". (Woods 7). The way animals are being treated should be looked at as another form of racism; Mr. Aquinas would be considered Speciesist.

Speciesism is the view that members of the species Homo Sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to the "superior" species (Cothran 21). This term was invented by Richard Ryder in the mid-1970's (Pringle 13). "There is no doubt that animals experience a life... like us, animals can feel pain and fear, but also excitement and satisfaction". (Cothran 29). The fact that animals are forced to live their lives in very inadequate cages made to prohibit them from moving is very barbaric (Finsen 8). In Laurence Pringle's book The Animal Rights Controversy Peter Singer is quoted, "Many kinds of animals have the capacity both to suffer and to enjoy life".

(16). Calves kept in veal crates live boring and frustrating lives and are fed with liquid food, the only have enough room to sit and stand (Finsen 9). In Geraldine Woods' book Animal Experimentation and Testing it says that in 1831 a man named Marshall Hall came up with four rules for scientists who were still using animal vivisection in their work: Blake 4 1. An experiment should never be performed on an animal if simple observation will give enough information. 1. All experiments should have a clear, reachable goal 2.

Scientists should check the work of other researchers to be sure that they are not repeating an experiment. 3. Animals should suffer as little as possible. Animals that have less ability to think should be used whenever possible, for example it would be better to use a worm than a chimpanzee (13). A quote made by Robert Garner says that, "If we insist upon granting rights to humans we should also grant them to animals. Animal experimentation then becomes illegitimate".

(Cothran 68). Animals are used to test many medical appliances (human and veterinary), food additives, pesticides, drugs, household and industrial chemicals, cosmetics, and toiletries ("What is vivisection" 1). They are also used in physiology research to see how the body works, in medical research in an attempt to identify and develop new treatments and to understand disease and its progression ("What is vivisection" 1). Other things humans use animals for is psychology and behavioral experiments, weapons research, and for producing biological products such as antibodies ("What is vivisection" 2). All of those things listed above are unethical and unnecessary, humans demand rights but then turn around and treat animals as if they have no feeling or understanding of what is happening to them. Many people believe that Blake 5 it is the law that requires animal testing on certain products ("Animals in Product Testing" 1).

That is very far from the truth. The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, only advises companies to conduct whatever toxicological tests are needed to confirm the safety of their products ("Animals in Product Testing" 1). Humans exploit animals for their own benefit when other alternatives (Cothran 69). There are a numerous amount of people who think experimenting on animals is an ethical practice. They believe that animal experiments will greatly expand their knowledge of medicine and physiology (Cothran 73). That is not the way to look at this situation; an experiment should never be performed on an animal if simple observation will give enough information (Woods 13).

Some think that humans are not the only ones who benefit from animal research because over eighty medicines have been developed for humans are now used to treat farm animals, pets, and wildlife (Cothran 75). Also organ transplant techniques, skin graphs, and drug therapies to treat illnesses such as diabetes, heart failure and epilepsy were all developed for animals from humans (Cothran 75). Creating new treatments for animals from research on humans is a completely different all together. It is different because when researching on people scientists are not actually looking to help animals it just happens that new treatments for humans can also work on animals.

Also scientists are not as Blake 6 careless when it comes to the pain it takes to get the results they want; humans can say "OUCH!" whereas animals have a harder time expressing their pain. Every year thousands of new cosmetic, personal care and household products are tested on animals ("Animals in Product Testing" 1). To test these products there are many different types of painful examinations that can be done. The first set of tests are the most common, the Draize Tests ("Animals in Product Testing" 1). The Draize tests are tests for eye and skin irritant cy where the solutions are put straight into the eyes or on the skin of conscious rabbits ("Animals in Product Testing 1). The testing period usually lasts around seven days, in this time the rabbit might suffer extreme pain, and blindness often happens ("Animals in Product Testing" 1).

During the skin test the animal is held down and test substances are put on shaved and abraded skin. After these tests are finished all of the animals are killed so scientists can study the internal effects of the toxic substances ("Animals in Product Testing" 1). Another test is called the LD-50, LD stands for lethal dose and 50 stands for 50% (Patterson 46). This test is when a group of animals is forced to inhale, ingest or otherwise consume varying amounts of a substance and then endure horrible pain in the process ("Animals in Product Testing" 1). The test is finished when fifty percent the animals die, then the other fifty percent of the animals are killed and studied to find out why they did not die ("Animals in Product Testing" 1). Blake 7 There are several hundred different animal rights organizations that are geared toward lowering or even stopping animal experimentation all together (Cohen 2).

While some organizations are regional or local, and others are concerned with a specific issue or a particular animal most of them are classified as animals rights groups (Cohen 118). While most of the organizations work for the better treatment of animals they can also differ in some ways (Cohen 118). For instance American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, also known as ASPCA, says that experimentation on animals "should be permitted only where there are no known feasible alternatives". (Cohen 118). People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, oppose experimentation on animals under any circumstance (Cohen 118). Those two organizations are only the beginning of the list; some other groups include Alliance for Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, International Network for Religion and Animals, National Anti-Vivisection Society, Humane Society of the United States, and many others (Cohen 119).

These numerous organizations stand for many different things. Alliance for Animals is an active volunteer organization interested in a variety of different animal causes, mostly in the New England area (Cohen 118). The Defenders of Wildlife are an organization above all concerned with wild animals (Cohen 118). The National Anti-Vivisection Society is a group absolutely opposed to the use of animals in research (Cohen 119). The Humane Society of the United States Blake 8 increasingly criticize animal research, for example they call bacon and eggs "the breakfast of cruelty". (Pringle 36).

Some organizations focus on reforming animal experiments. They want to minimize suffering through the "three Rs" (Patterson 46). The first "R" is to replace animal experiments with non-animal alternatives wherever possible (Patterson 46). The second "R" is to reduce the number of animals used through more careful design of experiments and, the last "R" is refine procedures so that the animals experience less pain and suffering (Greek 46). Other organizations focus on totally doing away with animal research all together (Patterson 46). Some abolitionists comment that the real question about animal research is not "Is it useful?" but, "Is it right?" , They also ask if we humans have the right to raise, capture, cage, and kill animals simply because we might learn something (Patterson 46).

A quickly growing number of organizations along with many doctors and scientists worldwide are pointing out the fact that animal research is totally useless and that its misleading results frequently prove counter-productive and damaging to human health ("The Human Victims: Animal Based Medical Research" 1). There are many drugs that were safety tested on animals that have caused horrible damage to people ("The Human Victims: Animal Based Medical Research" 1). Some of the problematic drugs are listed below: Blake 9 Open- an anti-arthritic drug, was withdrawn in 1982 after more than seventy deaths in Britain and over 3,500 other serious side effects, including damage to skin, eyes, circulation, liver, kidneys ("The Human Victims: Animal based Medical Research" 1). Osmosis- is an anti-inflammatory drug that was withdrawn in 1983 after 650 reported severe side effects and twenty deaths ("The Human Victims: Animal based Medical Research" 1). Thalidomide- this is a sedative given to pregnant women, it caused around ten thousand birth defects worldwide ("The Human Victims: Animal based Medical Research" 1). Clio quinol, Eral din, and Flos int are just a few other drugs that have caused health problems in various people ("The Human Victims: Animal based Medical Research" 1).

All of those tragic deaths and permanent side effects could have been prevented if those drugs would have been tested with an alternative method of testing, not animal vivisection. If experiments on animals would cease to exist there would not be, as some people believe, cruel experiments on humans (Greek 99). Yes, there would be some human experimentation but not on caged humans, or prisoners, or the mentally disabled, or lab humans, or any unwilling experimental humans (Greek 99). Experiments would be conducted on human cells and human tissues, more Blake 10 examining and documentation of human autopsies would be done, and more careful human observations would be done in the clinical setting (Greek 99).

Alternatives to animal experiments are often proven more reliable and less expensive, and are also more humane ("Animal Testing / Yes or No?" 1). An example of an alternative is, instead of using live rabbits for the Draize Eye Test, corneas from eye banks or advanced computer models can be used to accurately test the irritancy level ("Animal Testing / Yes or No?" 1). Some alternatives to animal testing are the chemical assay tests, tissue culture systems, cell and organ cultures, human skin patches, and computer and mathematical models ("Animal Testing / Yes or No?" 1). Others such as autopsy, clinical observation, and epidemiology have worked well in the past; now they are far more sophisticated and accurate (Greek 100). Autopsies are an essential source of knowledge (Greek 104). Research in hepatitis, diabetes, rheumatic fever, appendicitis and many others have been done with the help of autopsies (Greek 104).

In Vitro research, also known as test tube research, is yet another alternative that should be used more often in place of live animals (Greek 100). In Vitro research occurs in a flask or another controlled environment, rather than within a living organism or in a natural setting (Greek 101). At the end of the non-animal research there would be postmarketing drug surveillance done (Greek 110). Postmarketing drug surveillance is the reporting of any side effect of a medication after its release (Greek 110). Blake 11 It is absurd to believe that a veterinarian, who treats cats and dogs, could cure human diseases ("An Urgent Plea for Help" 1). Then why would some people truly believe that testing medications, which are meant for humans, on animals could cure human diseases?

Animals go through so much pain and suffering for what, in most cases, does not even work. Humans would never do painful tests on themselves to find cures for animal diseases. There are many alternatives to animal testing out there the human race just needs to put them to use. There is no need for animals to be used in any kind of testing. If someone asked you "Do animals have rights?" what would you say? Many people today would still say no, in spite of all the horrifying news stories and magazine articles they have seen and read.

Animals do have rights, they have thoughts and feelings like a human, without the ability to say "ouch!" . Animal rights have long been overlooked; unfair research has been done on animals for hundreds of years. Animal rights need to be taken seriously, research on animals needs to be stopped immediately. Structured efforts to increase humane treatment of animals began in the nineteenth century in England and the United States (Guither 1). The earliest goals were to stop cruelty and fight against experiments on animals. The first US animal rights organizations originated in the 1970's (Guither 1).

Their actions and activities were much broader and included both political and social objectives (Guither 1)..