Abstract This paper outlines the pro- and anti-animalresearch 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 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 animalresearch 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 animalresearch.
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 This is an argumentative research paper that is clearly in favor of animal experimentation. The paper discusses the pros and cons of animalresearch as well as the ethics. It also discusses the activities of animal rights organizations, and the ways in which these organizations effect animalresearch.
From the Paper "Animal research is a controversial topic that puts images of abuse and cruelty into many people's minds; however, these images are results of misleading information that animal rights activists provide to the public, and in order to fully understand the importance of animal experimentation, you must realize that almost every medical advance owes its success in part to animal research. Many people do not consider the reasons animal research is absolutely essential to science and for the betterment of the human race."
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 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."
Abstract This paper states that about 20 million animals are cruelly killed per year for product testing. The author feels that alternative means of testing can be used.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Death and Injury Rate
Drug Testing
Horror in the Lab Tests Performed
Alternatives
Conclusion
From the Paper "It's hard to imagine the cruelty some animals are subjected to during experimentation. Last year, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a researcher was videotaped ?using scissors to cut the heads off conscious, unanaesthetized animals before removing their brains (Heyde, 2002).? The researcher admitted doing it for convenience, though it violated university protocol."
Abstract This paper is an argument against PETA's policies regarding the protection of animals at all cost. The author argues that PETA and animal rights activists' policies have led to inequality in the world, and that the poorer nations are suffering as a result of these policies. The author also argues, that there is an order to the world, and that animals and humans each play a specific role in this world order.
From the paper:
"However it's not acceptable at all for undeveloped or poor countries not having any of those advanced technologies. For instance, because of a lack of crops and vegetables, which results from not having advanced agricultural technology, people in poor and undeveloped countries need to get animals and eat their meat to survive. Besides, far from use and need, animals are like enemies to some tribal people. They have to fight with enemies, and they sometimes have to kill enemies in some cases. The policy of ?animal rights? is valid only for developed countries, and it indicates that such animal rights organizations like PETA mostly consist of people from advanced countries with great consideration for animals and no consideration for the needy elsewhere in the world."
Abstract Animal welfare theories hold that while animals have interests, those interests can be sacrificed if there are some human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice. As against this, animal rights activists believe that animals have the same rights as human beings, which include the right to life, freedom from ownership and confinement, and from use as a food source or subject of medical research without consent. This paper researches the arguments of both animal welfare and animal rights theories before attempting to draw any conclusion on the subject.
From the Paper "Ethical standards of behavior have evolved along with human understanding of the value of life. Indeed, this fact is evident in the historical evolution of the human right to life, liberty, and dignity, which was followed by the belief that life in all its myriad forms should be valued. In fact, it is the latter worldview, which now forms the basis of the controversy over the use of animals in medical research and experiments. Currently, this controversy revolves around whether animals have as much right to life as human beings. Depending on the standpoint taken on this basic issue, arguments range on a continuum between animal welfare and animal rights."
Abstract This paper gives scientific and moral reasons why animal testing 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 animal testing 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 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.
Abstract The argument that animal testing 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 introduces, discusses and analyzes the topic of animal rights. Specifically, it investigates what Immanuel Kant believed about the treatment of animals and animal rights. It discusses how Kant might have felt about the use of animals for biomedical research. It also provides criticisms of Kant's views on animals' feelings and rights.
From the Paper "Kant would probably agree with animal testing, as it can aid the treatment of many human diseases, and the harm of a few animals for the good of rational human beings makes perfect sense. However, if animals can indeed feel pain and can suffer, then animal testing is often cruel and abusive. Kant might agree morally with using animals to save human lives, but a visit to a testing laboratory might change his view. Many of the cruelties these labs use in the name of science are difficult to view. Cohen believes that using animals in all testing does not make sense, but it does make sense in areas where there is the most risk to humans in testing. However, another animal rights expert disagrees. He writes, "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" (Zak 281). This certainly is far from Kant's views on animals and their value to society. Kant feels they have little value other than intrinsic and humanistic value, and so, there is nothing ethically wrong with using them to benefit and enhance human life."
Abstract This paper studies the arguments raised both against and in support of animal testing. It is believed that animals are subjected to cruelty during researches but medical science feels it would absolutely unwise to ban animal testing 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 This paper offers reports on six different lab activities for first grade students in different aspects of science, with sections on the identification of minerals, the identification of different types of rocks, the meaning and measurement of geologic time, the action of plate tectonics, earthquakes and how to measure them and find the epicenter, and the climate and trends over time.
From the Paper "Identification of Minerals: achieved by noting characteristics of luster, hardness, cleavage, streak, color, and so on, then looking to ID tables to find the correct name. -1. Standards 1. Grade Level Content Investigation 1. 1 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 6.1 1. 3.3, 3.4, 4.5 -1. Authentic Assessments 1. Used a hand lens and similar tools for the examination of sets of minerals, entering the data in an ID table so as to compare qualities and identify the minerals. -1. Misconceptions -1. Thoughts on Content Integration Content related to geography with discussions of mineral distribution. References "Mineral Identification." 2005. <http://mwoolley.customer.netspace.net.au/top.htm>. Stille, Darlene R. Minerals : From Apatite to Zinc. Minneapolis, Minn.: Compass Point Books, 2005."
