Abstract The argument that animaltesting is an act of cruelty against a species or species that cannot protest its supposedly pitiless treatment is a denial of the overall benefits that result from concentrated research on a living organism. It is through such research that many significant medical achievements have been made over the past hundred years. This paper shall address these achievements and argue that they would never have been accomplished were it not for the unhindered use of animals as test subjects during the research phase.
Abstract This paper discusses two attitudes toward animaltesting in medical research, one desirous of ending such testing and the other supporting such testing. According to this paper, those who support such testing also hold that animals have moral significance, but that human beings have to be given more consideration than do animals, so therefore testing to end human diseases needs to be conducted.
From the Paper "The use of animals in medical research has been much criticized for many years. In 1955, the Humane Society of the United States passed a resolution noting that at least 50,000,000 animals were used each year in American laboratories, many in ways causing great and prolonged pain and suffering, many inhumanely housed and cared for. The resolution stated that it was the moral duty of every human society to inform itself about these matters and to take all possible action to prevent cruelty to these animals. Because of this, the Humane Society undertook a systematic study of the use and care of animals in laboratories (Humane Society of the United States 1). After the study by the Humane Society, the group concluded that animal research was a problem and that efforts should be taken to stop it."
Abstract An opinion paper that discusses current debates on animaltesting, problems with animaltesting, alternatives and how regulation can be improved.
From the Paper "Animal testing has become a hot topic in the last few decades as more and more animal rights & awareness issues have entered the world stage. From a variety of backgrounds, groups have rallied to the cause of animals around the world that are involved in drug testing, cosmetic testing, and a number of different experimental situations. The most hotly contested issue has been drug testing, where the development of potentially human life-saving substances is weighed against the life of these animals. Recent scientific research has been working hard to increase the accuracy and usage of alternative testing methods."
Abstract This paper argues that people might talk about the benefits of animaltesting but it is established that animaltesting can delay the production of drugs, which would be beneficial to the humans, because they expressed adverse reactions in the animals. The author suggests that there are other alternatives to animaltesting including test tube experimentation of human tissue cultures. The paper states that, even though it is difficult to measure the degree of pain and stress caused animals through this inhumane treatment of animals, which no legislation can prevent, this use of animals is immoral and unethical.
Table of Contents
AnimalTesting - The Cons
AnimalTesting - The Pros
Conclusion
From the Paper "Moreover, vivisection does not guarantee the accuracy of the treatment as human diseases differ from animal diseases and the result can be very misleading at times. Further the therapy of the drug differs depending on the species that it is used upon. Therefore a drug might have beneficial effects on a monkey but it could have adverse effects on a human. Belladonna is harmless to rabbits but can kill a human. More examples like these are seen throughout history and one was seen in England where Opren, an anti-rheumatic drug, caused the death of over 70 people and put over 3000 people into critical conditions."
Abstract This paper covers the history of the modern animal rights movement and examines and evaluates the current federal legislation regarding all aspects of animaltesting and treatment of laboratory animals. Individual animaltests and alternatives to using laboratory animals are discussed from different viewpoints. Reasons for either supporting or condemning many different types of animaltests in the areas of medicine, cosmetics and scientific research are looked at.
From the Paper This paper covers the history of the modern animal rights movement and examines and evaluates the current federal legislation regarding all aspects of animal testing and treatment of laboratory animals. Individual animal tests and alternatives to using laboratory animals are discussed from different viewpoints. Reasons for either supporting or condemning many different types of animal tests in the areas of medicine, cosmetics and scientific research are looked at.
Abstract This paper examines how animaltesting is still alive and well in many parts of the United States. It discusses which animals are tested on more frequently and in what forms. The paper comes up with concrete suggestions for better implementation of the Animal Welfare Act which could stop much of the testing.
From the Paper "Cosmetics are not required to be tested on animals and since non-animal alternatives exist, it's hard to understand why some companies still continue to conduct these tests. Cosmetic companies kill millions of animals every year to try to make a profit. According to the companies that perform these tests, they are done to establish the safety of a product and the ingredients. However, the Food and Drug Administration which regulates cosmetic products, does not require animal testing (Peta)."
Tags: act, welfare, suffer, legislation, law, cosmetic, research
Abstract This paper examines how animaltesting is growing day by day and how animal welfare trusts are fighting to ensure the safety of animals against this cruel act. It puts forward the argument that animaltesting is indeed wrong and unjust and how it should be banned, as far as the testing of cosmetics, personal care, and household products are concerned. It also discusses how it should be restricted to life-saving research only, when no alternatives are available.
From the Paper "Animal testing exerts innocent animals to discomfort, species extrapolation problems and death. Often animals that have been tested upon are not even given anesthesia to alleviate their pain mainly because many scientists believe that anesthesia would interfere with the test's result. Even though alternatives to animal testing are widely available, there are still many companies that practice this hideous act upon animals."
Abstract This paper studies the arguments raised both against and in support of animaltesting. It is believed that animals are subjected to cruelty during researches but medical science feels it would absolutely unwise to ban animaltesting altogether as it would hinder the progress being made in different branches. It is therefore important to study the subject of animal experimentation in order to find out which group has more valid arguments in support of their stance.
From the Paper "Animal testing is the most commonly used method in not only medical research but also all other kind of scientific research, which has resulted in worldwide protests. It is believed that since many animals are subjected to cruelty during the research, it is an unethical practice, which must be banned. Even animal testing for cosmetic products has also been widely condemned. ?According to a 1994 study of the Tufts University Center for Animals and Public Policy, as many as 50 million or more animals were used each year in American medical research before 1970. Because of the growing influence of animal protection groups, this number had declined to an estimated 20 million animals in 1992.?" (http://www.tufts.edu/vet/cfa/index.html)
Abstract The author of the paper examines the idea that animal experimentation is a required aspect of science. The paper contends that legislation stipulating that such research must be carried out in accordance with current humane standards does not go far enough in defining adequate standards to differentiate between suitable and unsuitable animal experiments. The paper argues that all animaltesting that involves pain, death, or keeping animals in captivity, should be subjected to justification standards.
From the Paper "Despite the recent introduction of European legislation that forbids the use of animals in cosmetic testing, animals are still a very significant factor within scientific research, despite the terrible suffering they are subjected too. As argued by numerous individuals and groups, the "lives of all creatures, great and small, have value and are worthy of respect" (Ibid, n.d.). Furthermore, this right does not depend on abilities to reason or talk, but springs from the notion that life in itself, and regardless of its form, deserves to be respected. Animals feel pain, they sense danger, and they experience emotions such as fear, hunger, and expressions of relationships, such as caring for their young. Human life, therefore, is not superior to that of animals, despite our ability to reason. In fact, it is such reasoning that surely defends the moral and ethic issues raised within this paper, which all clearly point towards the immoral nature of using animals as part of scientific research."
Abstract This paper discusses the ongoing debate in society regarding animaltesting. The author examines the guidelines for experimentation on animals, modern methods, and discusses the pros and cons of experimenting on animals for human benefit.
From the Paper "Are the ways that science researches with animals to find cures to today's problems ethical, or is it simply an excuse for animal cruelty? Animal testing is a crucial part of finding cures to diseases and other problems that plague today's society. Animals have been the subjects of tests since the early eighteen hundreds in order to try to find cures to common problems back then. Humans test all kinds of products on animals no matter how it harms the animals. There are valid reasons for testing some products on animals. However, I think that some of the methods used are unethical. Is maliciously harming an animal ethical if it helps the human race?"
Abstract This paper presents an argument for the necessity of animaltesting of medical products, consumer products and research for cures and discoveries for illnesses and disorders. The claim is made that alternative means of testing are not as effective.
From the Paper "Throughout the years there have been many groups who have protested using animals for the purpose of testing products. These products include medical products, consumer products and research for cures and discoveries about illnesses and disorders. The groups who protest the use of animals say that it is cruel to use them for the tests when alternative methods could be found. While alternative methods have been developed for many types of testing the use of animals for testing must still be embraced. Alternative testing methods have not proven themselves to be as reliable as animal testing."
Abstract This paper examines how strong arguments can be made for and against animaltesting and how both sides are quite persuasive on a number of points. Through a literature review, it looks at how those against animal research make strong points about the excessive, pointlessly inhumane, and sometimes unnecessary use of animals, their terrible suffering and the need to look for alternative methods. It examines how they are less convincing in their claim that animals do not serve as adequate vehicles for useful testing or that the past record of achievements employing animaltesting is unimpressive. It shows how those who favor the use of animals in research point to a record of achievement that has benefited humanity and are convincing in arguing that animals continue to be useful. But they cannot successfully defend the treatment of animals in terms of quality of life or the infliction of sometimes unnecessary suffering. It evaluates how the best solution is to develop guidelines that do not forbid the use of animals but insist on humane treatment, curtailing waste, sound justifications, eliminating unnecessary suffering, and commitment to developing alternatives to animal research.
From the Paper "The principal argument of the animal testing advocates is, therefore, that the use of animals in experiments has and does produce strong results that save hundreds of thousands of human lives. But the principal argument of the opposing side cannot be the one put forward by Barnard and Kaufman for, as the other writers show, there is a clear record of accomplishment and the attempt to mount a scientific argument, without "broach[ing] the ethical objections," is easily refuted (Barnard & Kaufman 82)."
Abstract Around the globe, animals are utilized to test products ranging from shampoo to new cancer drugs. Each and every short of medication applied is first tested on the animals. Animals were also applied to develop anesthetics to alleviate human ailments and suffering during surgery. The paper shows that, currently, questions have been raised about the ethics of this usage. Several regulations have been devised and legislated to evaluate and control the application animals in all fields of studies, with the objective of ensuring that such research is carried out in a humanely and ethical manner. The paper show that acceptance of such experimentation is subject to heavy debate.
Paper Outline:
Introduction
Arguments for Testing Arguments against Testing My Stance (Author's Point of View)
Conclusion
Works Cited
From the Paper "Government and humanitarian agencies have financed researches into the substitutive strategies since the 1960s. (Animal Experiments) Revlon Cosmetics was considered premier in this line to finance research studies for substitutions with a grant of $750,000 to the Rockefeller University in 1979. Several agencies like the John Hopkins Center for the Alternatives to Animal testing - CAAT, the International Foundation for Ethical Research, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, and the Soap and Detergent Association followed the trend and initiated their own projects in justifying the alternatives. (Animal Testing Alternatives) During the last 15 years, Germany has granted about ?4.2 million per annum in research grants, while the annual expenditure of Netherlands in this regard is ?1.4 million."
Abstract This paper gives scientific and moral reasons why animaltesting is wrong and unjustifiable. It details the effects on animals after experiments that are conducted in torture-like situations and how these tests are often unnecessary and/or avoidable. It shows how the law does not protect animals against being used for experiments, and that through the use of advances in technology animaltesting has become obsolete. This paper uses statistics and scientific research to support its position.
From the paper:
"More than 25 million animals suffer and die each year in American laboratories alone. (ADL) This continues despite the fact that humans have long known that most animals have an ability to feel pain as advanced, if not more advanced, than their own. Human pain is easily recognizable and universally accepted as fact. Most vertebrate animals exhibit pain in a nearly identical fashion. They writhe about, contort the muscles of their bodies and face, make sounds of distress and even calls for help. They will try to avoid the source of that pain, demonstrate fear when threatened with its re occurrence, and can even be conditioned to watch for warning signs."
Abstract This paper presents arguments against animaltesting and contends that there are alternatives such as test tube experimentations of human tissue cultures. The writer believes it is unethical to put animals through torture and suffering so that scientists can develop drugs that may not benefit us and might cause a delay in discovering effective medicines. The writer further argues that deaths through experimentation are no less than murder and are absolutely unnecessary.
Outline:
AnimalTesting - The Cons
AnimalTesting - The Pros
Conclusion
From the Paper "The use of animal testing increased in the United States in the late 19th century and as a reaction to it, groups that spoke for the rights of animals were formed. If one asks the people conducting experiments on animals as to why they do such a thing, their initial response would be that animals are like humans. When asked why they consider it to be morally okay to experiment on animals but not humans, they would say that animals are not like us (Anonymous). Animal testing is not a requirement by law either and hence there is no reason why one should continue with these unethical practices. Each year, millions of animals are tested upon in the United States and such experiments include the isolation of baby monkeys from their mothers. This is inhuman and as no human would put a baby away from his mother, similarly no human should put a baby animal away from its mother."
