| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "ANIMAL TESTING": |
|
|
Animal Testing, 2005.
This paper argues against animal testing.
1,155 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that people might talk about the benefits of animal testing but it is established that animal testing 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 animal testing 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
Animal Testing - The Cons
Animal Testing - 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."
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2002.
A paper on the need for animal testing to advance medicine.
1,790 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper advocates the benefits gained from using animals in medical and scientific testing. The paper points out that while, ideally, it would be better to not use animals, the benefits outweigh the costs. The paper outlines the contribution animal testing has made so far to the medical profession and why there is a need for animal testing at all. The paper then offers some alternatives to animal testing which should be used wherever possible.
From the Paper
"Animal research has been vital for medical advances in the past (?Today's Research for Tomorrow's Medical Advances?). For example, it has helped provide antibiotics and vaccines, insulin for diabetes, treatments for leukemia, local and general anesthetics, anticoagulants, heart valve replacements, and has made possible advances in medical technology such as blood transfusion, kidney dialysis, and the heart lung machine. See Figure 1 on the following page for a complete list of the contributions animal testing has made to developing vaccines, medicines, surgery enhancements and medical technology."
| |
|
Animal Testing in the United States, 2000.
Examines the procedures and rules governing animal testing, reviews alternative methods and looks at the history of the animal rights movement.
3,795 words (approx. 15.2 pages), 35 sources, $ 104.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
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.
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.
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2004.
A debate on whether animal testing is right or wrong.
945 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how animal testing 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 animal testing 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."
| |
|
New Developments in an Old Argument: Animal Testing, 2002.
The pros and cons of animal testing as well as a presentation of new developments in the field.
1,300 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An opinion paper that discusses current debates on animal testing, problems with animal testing, 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."
| |
|
Animal Testing: How Important Is It?, 2001.
An argument on whether animal testing is ethical or not.
1,275 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 6 sources, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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)
| |
|
Animal Testing and Its Benefits, 2002.
Argues that the medical breakthroughs made in the past 100 years could not have been made without animal testing.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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.
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2005.
Examines the ethical questions regarding the issue of animal testing.
3,778 words (approx. 15.1 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 104.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
Proposal on the Ban of Animal Testing, 2002.
This paper discusses the abuse of animals and ways to ban animal testing.
1,226 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how animal testing 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)."
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2002.
An opinion paper advocating the necessity of animal testing.
1,245 words (approx. 5.0 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents an argument for the necessity of animal testing 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."
| |
|
Ethics of Animal Testing, 2001.
The paper explains the benefits and downsides of animal testing. It goes through the history and ties in ethics.
1,230 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 3 sources, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the ongoing debate in society regarding animal testing. 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?"
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2005.
A discussion regarding testing on animals, with both for and against arguments.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 10 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses two attitudes toward animal testing 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."
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2006.
An argument against laboratory testing of animals.
1,396 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper holds the view that animal testing cannot provide firm evidence that a new product is safe and effective. The paper goes on to suggest that the testing methods used are immoral, and violate an animal's rights and that scientists should attempt to use alternative methods, and stop their cruel animal testing.
From the Paper
"Laboratory animals and humans are different. Laboratories use primates such as monkeys and chimpanzees for modeling human diseases related to the brain and the nervous system because these animals are the most closely related to humans. However, human's and primate's brains are not same. "The primate brain is not a scaled-down version of human's brain. Chimpanzee's brains and human's are similar in structure, but that does not mean they perform the same functions."(Coghlan) Therefore, scientists cannot acquire human medical insights accurately from the studies of primates. "Scientists have learned a lot about human's physiology through comparisons in animals. But they argue that the quest for drugs that modify human behavior and brain function requires a subtlety not available through the study of primate brain."(Coghlan) In addition, other animals used for testing drugs, chemicals, and cosmetics are also not identical to humans and cannot form some of the same health problems even though these animals are biologically similar to humans. In spite of this fact, many laboratories still continue animal experiments on new products, producing unreliable results. Although the scientists prove the safety of the products on animals, the products may be harmful to humans."
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2002.
Argues that testing products on animals is beneficial for humanity.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the role of animal testing in research and why - despite the controversies that surround it - the process of testing medical and chemical research on animals has provided benefits for the human race. This paper provides a brief examination of the progress that has been made in terms of research purposes through the process of animal testing.
| |
|
Animal Testing, 2002.
Argues in favour the use of animals in medical experiments.
854 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
|
|
|
