Abstract
This paper reviews the hypothesis that medical research using primates is wholly acceptable and should be continued. The paper addresses this issue using the sub-headings Non-human primate testing and the fight against disease, Embryonic research/cloning and non-human primates, and Non-human primate testing and "remedying" the behavioral processes of the human mind. The methodology employed is that of an oppositional "pro" v. "con" approach and an effort will be undertaken to examine to what extent bio-medical research in all of the aforementioned areas is aided by the testing of these creatures. The paper concludes that the literature is inconclusive but not altogether discouraging.

Tags:monkey, lab, animal, testing, product

Abstract
The use of animals in testing has been going on for thousands of years and has led to some of the most significant and live saving medical breakthroughs on the planet. This paper argues that medical testing using animals should continue, as it saves lives and helps researchers discover life-saving technologies before testing on humans. The paper includes arguments on why using animals for testing is a widespread and scientifically sound practice.

From the Paper
"Using animals, especially those that are bred in the lab specifically for medical research is not only cost effective, it is morally the correct thing to do. Some animal activists point to research done by cosmetic firms as a use of animals in testing that should be banned. One expert notes, "Rights thought dictates that we cannot kill one rights-holder to save another " or even more than one other " whether or not the life of the former is 'different' from that of the latter." However, millions also use cosmetics and health care products, and if any ingredient is potentially harmful, it is far better to discover it in animal testing rather than in testing on humans. Animal testing simply makes sense for a variety of reasons, including cost savings, preservation of human life, and the safety and security of future generations."

Tags:PETA, Stephen, Hales, lab

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."

Tags:substitutes, vaccine, cosmetics, lab, disease

Abstract
This paper presents a look at the debate on animal rights before analyzing the various arguments and coming to a considered opinion. The paper first considers the purely teleological arguments of J.M. Loeb and others. Next, the paper takes a deontological stance, but where the duty is towards humans and humane sensibility rather than towards animals. The paper also points out the fault in according rights to animals, which relies on a misreading of Locke (rights do not come from rational choice but moral choice). The shortcomings in the purely teleological arguments are also pointed out.

From the Paper
" The use of animals in scientific experiments incites horror in many. At the same time no one can deny that such experiments deliver benefits to society. This gives rise to the fundamental debate as to whether scientific experiments on animals can be deemed to be moral. With the advance of science and technology more and more new products are coming into the market, and the necessity arises of testing the safety of these products. Testing on humans is unanimously deemed unethical, and the next logical step is to test on animals. The effect on animals may not entirely reflect the possible effect on humans, yet they nevertheless provide valuable indications. The most contentious area is in medical research. Here the moral arguments for and against are most severe. Testing drugs and techniques on animals potentially saves lives. At the same time they subject animals to the most severe pain. Naturally, there are strong arguments both for and against animals in scientific experimentation."

Tags:specieism, Singer, Machan, Reagan, Loeb

Abstract
The paper begins by discussing how scientific animal research has lead to many breakthroughs in healthcare and psychological treatment, and therefore, many see it as a necessary evil. The paper then addresses the drawbacks to this research, including the cruelty inflicted on, and the pain and suffering of the animals, and the fact that they are often euthanized after the experimentation. The writer of this paper hopes that society will find a better way to develop new research and healthcare techniques, and contends that researchers should ban cruel procedures, especially in the testing of beauty and cosmetic products.

From the Paper
"Another drawback to animal research is the euthanasia of animals after they have been used in experiments. In most cases, the animals are euthanized, giving them no chance for a life outside the laboratory, even if the testing has not physically damaged them. This seems like a tragic way to end a life, and a sad waste of animal resources. On top of the euthanasia, many (or most) of these animals are born in the labs, spend their lives in small, cramped cages in the lab, and die in the lab, never enjoying the "normal" life that most pets would enjoy. Most of the animals used in testing, such as mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, chimpanzees, and even cats, can make good, loving pets if given the opportunity, but they never get that opportunity when they are born and raised in a lab."

Tags:pain, suffering, cages, confinement, cruelty

From the Paper
"Whether or not animal research should be conducted on various products has long been a matter of controversy. Some forms of animal research have become so controversial that they have been stopped by most companies, such as research using animals to test cosmetic products. Medical research, on the other hand, is more easily defended and has its proponents who claim that there is no other way to test certain products or procedures, though opponents dispute this and cite the possibility of using computer models instead of animals. The issue has become a rallying point for activists who challenge the use of animals in such research and who have at times undertaken to free lab animals as a protest. The issue is clearly not settled.

This is also not a new issue. In 1955 the Humane Society of the ..."

Abstract
This paper examines how strong arguments can be made for and against animal testing 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 animal testing 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)."

Tags:humane, treatment, research, life

Abstract
This paper outlines the pro- and anti-animal research positions . The author argues that, at its core, the debate is more political than scientific. The author believes that scientists are increasingly acknowledging both the logical and ethical validity of criticisms of animal testing from other academic disciplines and from the general public as well.

Abstract
There are a number of ethical questions regarding the use of animals for biomedical research and particularly the use of the primates who are closest to humans genetically and who have been shown to have capacity for language and reason. Even if it is determined that humans have the right to use animals to further their own purposes then the question arises as to when and for what reason is the suffering or death of an animal justified. Also there is great debate on the validity of research that rests on the premise that primates such as chimps are close enough to humans to give accurate information. As new methods such as computer modeling and cell and tissue cultures are developed, they are showing higher levels of accuracy for some tests.

Tags:primates, in, research