Argumentative Essay.docx2/ 4
Baneen ZiaUH Honors CollegeEvery year, millions of animals suffer tremendous pain as a result of scientific studies, commercial testing, and medical research in the United States. Animal testing, the method of using non—humans in means of research, requires the captivity of animal in order to experiment for human breakthroughs and advancements. Although a few of the countless experiments performed contribute to the act of improving lives through the discovery of cures, researchers risk the lives of many and harm these animals in the process. The natural lives of animals become disrupted and these animals forcefully enter studies in which they will most likely undergo pain or, unfortunately, death. The unjust and inhumane treatment of animals in experimentations to innovate and benefit the human race is unnecessary, misleading, and unethical, and therefore, should not be performed for biomedical research. Animal testing estimates 26 million animals used for biomedical research each year in America. By testing the toxicity of drugs or the effectiveness of medications, scientists use animals to understand the human body without actually causing harm to it. The three methods of testing include toxicology research, pure research, and applied research for an under the intentionof discovering effects of such medications and bearing direct outcomes. Scientific researchers use animals to understand the human anatomy without causing impairment to the human race, however, comparing non—human body systems to those of humans portrays the inaccuracy and misleading aspects of using animal experimentations to obtain new information. The cellular andanatomical makeup of non—humans differs from humans and the comparison of both may resultin error in animal testing, substantiating the unnecessary act to perform the tests. Because of the differences in body systems of animals and humans, the reaction to drugs and methods of testing on non—humans may not precisely exhibit the similar reaction as it would to a human being taking the drugs.
Baneen ZiaUH Honors CollegeExisting alternative methods validate the unnecessary use of animals for biomedical research. Furthermore, the cost—efficient, reliable, and more accurate substitute methods to animal e provide credible comparison to the human anatomy. Micro dosing, a method in which a human is given a small amount of a drug to test the effects it has on the body without affecting the body's system, permits a direct result rather than the need to process through the differences of non—human experimentation procedures. In vitro, a test tube method, provides the ability to test medications from cultural human tissues and skin cells, benefiting the testing of skin creams'irritability on human skin in contrast to testing the effectiveness of the drug on animal skin, which may be mislead to results. Genetic testing and stem cells also provide replacements for animal experimentations in which tests, much life the testing of drugs on human tissue in test tubes, yield results. Accessible computerized stimulations of biomedical testing result non—invasive to living beings, therefore, cause no harm or injuries in the process of attaining information in the matter scientific research in medicine. As another example, animal experimentation is misleading in the matter that more of a contrast between animals' anatomy and humans' anatomy exists more than similarities. Scientists' alternative decision to use human tissue, bone marrow, or even artificial skin as a source to experiment and research on tumors for cures to cancer prevail to substitute animal skin and eliminate the fault of discovering a cure for the wrong species. More alternatives include the use of MRIs and CT scans on humans to visualize the human anatomy and use x-rays as a source of research to benefit humans which reliable that that of is more animals.The use of animals for biomedical research concludes as misleading and undependable because of the major contrasts between both of humans and species animals, resulting in the nonessentials of animals for this scientific research to advance in medicine. For example,
Baneen ZiaUH Honors Collegeanimals should not be used for biomedical research because it deduces as unethical in the mattersof many peoples' beliefs that animals should be treated equally to humans. The cruel and inhumane treatment of animals interferes in the controversy of animal testing with scientists knowingly inflicting pain and observing the animals' reactions to it without the remedy of a given as an option to decrease the pain. Discrimination against these non—humans in the concept of choosing animals for biomedical research and experimentation over human beings provoke the idea that the treatment animals receive is unjust and unprincipled. Religious traditions state followers should not cause suffering to animals for they should be merciful to them and give them as much respect as given to human beings. As cancer rates rise annually and treatment cancers lack funds, animal experimentation begins to emphasize the immoral acts scientist commence to measure to. The value of living beings assumes the ethical system permits equal rights to every living being, including animals used for research, inflicting certain emotions. The consistency of righteous ac leads to the belief that all acts made by health care workers must be follow through ethical and with the morals and beliefs of all persons. Humans are enabled to assign moral practices of one and differentiate between what right and what is wrong through the concept of is protection and harm, banning animal experimentation for biomedical research, or continuing the tests on these victims If denying animals a right to life, opponents may see this as denying a right to life for all living beings, including human themselves, which may result in the withdrawal of consent to animal experimentation and the increase in votes to deny the right to perform it. The cruelty free acts of non—animal testing appeals more to the opponents because they conclude less harmful to the environment due to the decreased amount of drugs used and waste created and decrease mortality rates of animals.
Baneen ZiaUH Honors College Although animal experimentation has previously benefited the human race over the yearsin expanding life spans, the alternative methods to gaining the same benefits are existent and could be in the hands of many biomedical researchers. The use of in vitro test tube methods could substitute the use of animal tissue extracted from the non—humans and replaced by humantissue and cells. This results in an accurate and reliable outcome to expand the biomedical field of research and innovation. Furthermore, as animals in scientific research led to the discovery of vaccinations, the use of human tissue, human skin cells, and human x-rays may be used to replace the use of animals The use of cows to find a vaccine for smallpox eventually spread to farmers caring for the cows, therefore, scientists would eventually discover a vaccination from either. This validates the unnecessary use of animals for biomedical research because These humans may be used in a less violent and more respected manner. As animal testing has been used to examine the nature of human beings and to improve the lives of many, the harm brought to these animals interferes with this belief and the views of proponents. The use of these alternative methods, the understanding of the inhumane treatment and immoral acts toward animals, and the contrast between both beings result in the belief that animal testing is nonessential for biomedical research.