The Validity of Vivisection
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper discusses how the inherent value and validity of animal experimentation has been grossly misconceived over the past century within the field of scientific and medical research, as considerable evidence exposes the practice as inefficient, unreliable, unnecessary, and hazardous. The paper further argues that there is something fundamentally wrong with the current state of animal experimentation practices. The paper focuses on the practical debate with regards to animal research as opposed to the moral and argues that while practical debate is grounded in concrete facts, moral debate is founded on ethical and theological ideology, which, by definition, can be neither proven nor refuted. The paper also examines four primary arguments opposing the validity of animal experimentation.
From the Paper:"Toxicological research - which consists of testing the safety of the chemical components of medications, pesticides, food additives, air fresheners, and cosmetics, to name a few - also consistently misconstrues the value of testing on animals. Many within the scientific community, in fact, regard toxicological vivisection as both capricious and superfluous. The LD50 test, for example, measures the amount of a given chemical required to kill fifty percent of the animal sample (usually around one hundred mice or rats); despite the fact that sex, age, weight, and stress are all influential factors, and despite the fact that "laboratories often obtain widely disparate data with the same test substances" (Andregg 6), these infamously unreliable tests are extremely commonplace. Another example is the Draize eye irritancy test, in which "unanaesthetized rabbits have irritant substances applied directly into their eyes" (Abbott par. 6). Again, because rabbits have structurally different eyelids, corneas, and tear ducts, results from these tests are laughably inaccurate; in one investigation, an alarming 18 to 250 ratio was observed between levels of eye inflammation in rabbits and humans (par. 10). How can such remarkably incongruous findings be expected to be taken seriously?"
Sample of Sources Used:
- Abbott, Alison. "More than a cosmetic change." Nature. November 2005.
- Andregg, Christopher, et al. "A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation." Ohio: Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2006.
- Animal Procedures Committee. Report of the Cost-Benefit Working Group of the Animal Procedures Committee. United Kingdom: APC, 2003.
- Fox, Michael Allen. The Case of Animal Experimentation: An Evolutionary and Ethical Perspective. California: U of California P, 1988.
- Hepple, Robert, et al. "The Ethics of Research Involving Animals." London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2005.
Cite this Argumentative Essay:
The Validity of Vivisection (2012, August 13) Retrieved October 25, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/the-validity-of-vivisection-151630/
"The Validity of Vivisection" 13 August 2012. Web. 25 October. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/the-validity-of-vivisection-151630/>