...The number of animals killed each year in the United States alone varies between 17 and 70 million. The Animal Welfare Act (ACA) states that laboratories must report the number of animals used in experiments; yet mice, birds, and rats are not included in this figure. These animals are used in 80 to 90 percent of all animal testing. Because of this, it is impossible to calculate the exact number of animals used in such experiments (PETA, 5). Animal testing might not directly affect ordinary people each day or be an issue on everybody’s mind, yet the actions people do daily can affect animal experimentation. This has been a worldwide issue and an ongoing battle for decades. Vivisection, the practice of lab experimenting on live animals, has been around since the beginning of scientific medicine. It is an alternative to the dissection of human corpses, which resulted from religious leaders’ protests (Choose Cruelty Free). There are numerous reasons why people and organizations want animal testing changed. People of all nations and religions argue differently on this topic. Yet the main factor in deciding the moral correctness of animal experimentation is one’s personal belief. No matter which side a person takes on this topic, they feel there are several things that must be done to benefit their stance and its publicity. A group in opposition of animal testing is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Their main claim is put as, “Animals are not ours to...
Words: 1084 - Pages: 5
... OL6 8RF 24th February 2014 Bridge Street, Westminster, London, SW1A OAA Dear David Heyes, I am writing to you concerning the ever growing issue of animal testing and vivisection. For hundreds of years animals have been tampered with and killed for one reason alone - to satisfy our medicinal tenacities. Over 600,000 animals have been used this year alone; this figure is astounding and utterly shocking! These vulnerable, exposed creatures languish in pain everyday of their lives. Can you imagine living like this? After reading an article by Peter Tatchell, a human rights campaigner, it has intrigued and inspired me to make people aware of this urgent subject. I hope, after reading what I have to say, you will raise this issue in Parliament. As humans, how can we treat another being so horrendously? The pain that is inflicted on these un-consenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it. Vivisection must stop! As Tatchell suggests, we MUST find a plausible humane replacement. Too many people, it comes as a surprise that the number of invasive medical experiments involving animals has continuously increased since modern records began in...
Words: 954 - Pages: 4
...throat of a living pig. To study the beating heart, they cut open into its chest. For centuries physicians and researchers used animals to enhance their knowledge about how the various organs and systems of the body functioned, as well as to hone their surgical skills. As long as animals have been used in experiments, people have expressed concerns about such research. Questions about the morality, necessity, and scientific validity of animal experiments have arisen since those ancient physicians first began to study bodily functions. Alternatives are methods, which refine existing tests by minimizing a! nimal distress, reduce the number of animals necessary for an experiment or replace whole animal use with vitro or other tests. While vivisection has received more attention and funding, clinical and epidemiological (studying the natural course of disease within human population) studies have had a much more profound impact on human health. In fact, clinical and epidemiological evidence linking smoking to lung cancer was established long before warnings of the dangers of smoking were released to the general public. Because animal experimentation failed to each the same conclusion, warning labels on cigarettes were delayed for years! During this time hundreds of people died from lung cancer because the results of animal experimentation were considered more valid than studies of human patients. Animal based research is the science of the past. There are a number of...
Words: 764 - Pages: 4
...from multiple body parts. He continues to be injected with substances and remains in excrusiating pain! This lasts for two weeks until sadly his body gives out and he dies. Gandi said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." If this is true, the perceived greatness of America is nothing but a error. Animal experimentation should be abolished, because of its uneithical to destory an innocent animals life. Vivisection, surgery on a living organism for experimenetal purposes, wass first documented in the the writing of the Greeks in the third and forth centery BC. Aristotle was one of the first to do experiments of living animals. It is safe to say this is an ancient practice. Mondernly, animals are used in testing everything from soap to cancer and aid treatments. A common misconception people have about animal testing is that only rats or small rodents are being tested on; this however is false. While a large percentage of animal testing and vivisection occur on rats and mice. Dogs, cats, monkey, pigs, rabbits, horses, and birds are also used. These animals have make up placed in there eyes while they are concious to determine its effect on sensitive eye tissues. This prosess often causes blindness, and extreme irritaion and pain to the animal being tested. For presciption drug tests animals are given doses of trial...
Words: 1531 - Pages: 7
...Animal Testing/Experimentation For many years, scientists have been testing new products such as shampoo, lotion, and cosmetics products on animals to test for safety. Testing these animals may involve harming the animals through excessive use of lethal chemicals which may lead to the deaths of these animals. Although animal testing may prove to be effective for proving whether a product is potentially dangerous or not, animal experimentation is an inhumane practice which is made unnecessary through the alternatives modern technology has created in replacement of animal testing. In the process of making new products, many animals undergo cruel tests for the benefits of commercial and human use. In the article “19,000 Animals Killed in Automotive Crash Tests,” “about 19,000 dogs, rabbits, pigs, ferrets, rats and mice have been killed during the last decade in automobile safety tests performed by the General Motors Corporation” (19,000 Animals Killed). This was the ironic and brutal treatment for animals in this highly technological automobile Corporation, even though there were advances of “computer models and dummies” (19,000 Animals Killed) that allowed the testers of the automobile to predict the outcomes of the injuries. Animals are also used to test cosmetics for irritation on skin. According to the article “Secret French move to block animal-testing ban,” Andrew Osborn states that “38,000 animals are used and killed in developing cosmetics in the EU every year”. The number...
Words: 889 - Pages: 4
...Introduction About 95% of animals that are tested on are not protected by law and the other 5% are only given minimal protection. Each year millions of animals are harmed by the unlawful testing. Cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies should not be allowed to test their experimental products on animals and harm the animals, instead companies should find alternative solutions. Animals have been subjected to testing since the early Greek Scientists such as Aristotle and Erasistratus started the use of testing on animals. After, Aristotle and Erasistratus started testing on animals many physicians began to test surgical procedures on animals before they performed the procedures on humans. In the late 1930s, the United States Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act passed a law that enforced companies to test their products on animals before the product can be released to the public and then, other United States Administrations decided that it was a excellent idea to test products and drugs on animals before they could be sold and bought by consumers. Now, since the early 2000s animal activists such as, PETA are campaigning to stop the testing on animals. PETA focuses and tries to share with the public about the animals that are being forced into testing and are not protected by any laws. The laws that are currently in place do not protect the types of animals that get tested on. PETA and other animal activist groups are trying to enact a law that protect all animals including the ones that are...
Words: 1224 - Pages: 5
...Firstly the definition of rights between humans and animals are different. Animals do not have some rights as humans because there "is no morality for them and animals do any moral wrong. Therefore it is impossible to empower the same rights to humans and animals, and animals should not be considered for the same position as humans. For example, the laws of human provide us a guarantee that every person has the right of not being hurt. If the application is also suitable to the animal, of course scientists should not be allowed to use animals in the experiments, but the laws of the animal world cannot offer that, because of the fact that wild animals prey on other animals for their food. It is conceivable that animals do not have a sense of duty like people, so they should not be equated with human beings. However, using animals for scientific experiments should not be argued. Using animals is not mistreating animals, the use of scientific research has a more meaningful and essential purpose. Secondly animal testing standards are acceptable as they are controlled by many laws and regulations. In Australia, all research and teaching that involves the use of animals must be according to the "Australian code of Practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes." Each animal testing must be assessed by an" institutional Animal Ethics Committee (AEC)". The AEC decides whether or not an experiment can be conducted, and can place provisions on the numbers of animals used...
Words: 792 - Pages: 4
...Animal Testing Plenty of people argue about whether or not scientists should be allowed to test products intended for humans on animals. This is because it is cruel and inhumane towards animals. Animal testing is wasteful, unreliable, and misleading. Without a doubt, animal testing is unethical, barbaric, and a waste of time. Testing human products on animals is not necessary, when us humans are using them, not animals. According to Humane Society International, animals that are experimented are subjected to food and water deprivation, infliction of wounds and burns to study the healing process, and infliction of pain to study its effect and treatment. In addition, animals are also killed by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck breaking, decapitation, or other means. Research by Cruelty Free International suggests that about 115 million animals worldwide are burned, crippled, abused ,and poisoned in experiments every year. Moreover, the amount of anguish the animals are involuntarily exposed to causes unforeseen changes in neuroregeneration, neurochemistry and genetic expression, this leads to ineffectual and undependable changes. Millions of animals suffer because of wasteful and unnecessary testing for human products. Animals suffer too, if humans are refrained, it is speciesism. It doesn’t mean that even if animals do not have the ability to speak or have cognitive ability, they suffer. This is no different than discriminating humans that have severe mental impairments...
Words: 425 - Pages: 2
...Every year, millions of animals undergo painful suffering or death as a result of scientific research into the effects of drugs, food additives, cosmetics and other chemical products. While most people think animal testing is necessary, others are upset by what they see as needless suffering. This essay looks at some of the positive and negative aspects of animal testing. Many medical treatments and procedures have been developed from experiments on animals. Since animals share many features with humans, scientists use animals to test the safety and effectiveness of newly developed drugs before pilot testing on small groups of patients. Medical teams practice new operating techniques such as transplants on animals. Without animal testing, many procedures or new drugs would be extremely unsafe. However, many people are concerned that animals are suffering unnecessarily and cruelly. They do not believe that every new drug needs to be tested on animals, especially with the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models. They also are worried that many animal tests are ineffective, pointing out that any drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing. They particularly feel that animal testing should not be used for non-essential products such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced and more humane methods used. We need to make sure that the millions of animals...
Words: 269 - Pages: 2
...testing until I started researching. There are many different opinions on why it should continue and why it should end. G. Thesis Statement: I’m going to talk about the history of animal testing, its pros, and its cons. (Transition: Every year there are tens of millions of animals used as testing material for many purposes.) III. Speech Body slide 2 A. Animal testing goes back thousands of years there’s evidence that the ancient Greeks performed experiments on living animals as early as the 3rd century BCE. 1. The person most commonly correlated with animal testing in ancient times is Galen, a Greek physician who lived in Rome in the 2nd century AD. Galen dissected live animals. This process is known as vivisection. Galen performed these dissections to study the animals’ anatomy....
Words: 986 - Pages: 4
...Animal Testing Every year over 100 million animals are killed due to animal testing (“Experiment”). Animals have been used for testing throughout history. Some individuals agree with animal testing but do not think about the harm scientist cause animals. Humans take their studies to the extreme by putting any product on animals not thinking about the consequences. Individuals do not think about how the products they are using were tested; they don’t realize what scientist did to test the product in order for them to use without having an issue. Animal testing shouldn’t be allowed to test any products or for medical studies; it is unethical and many animals are abused and harmed in various ways. Throughout history the practice of using animals for testing has been done repeatedly. Many scientist use animals to practice medical studies or to test products in order for humans not to be harmed. According to author Rachel Hajar, a Greek physician many centuries ago “...conducted animal experiments to advance the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology” (Hajar). Testing cosmetic products and medicine are the most common uses that animals are used for. Scientist use animals mainly for medical procedures to be able to assure they are safe on humans. Although scientist use animals for testing they have consequences. According to Cruelty Free International “Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed not for their own good, and are usually killed...
Words: 1554 - Pages: 7
...Bibliography. (Idaho OR Oregon OR Montana) vivisection AND alternatives AND ethics Searched on www.bing.com Alternatives to Animal Testing, Alternatives to Animal ... The Truth About Vivisection Opinion: Teaching Science Without Harm | The Scientist . (Vivisection OR Animal Testing) ethics AND alternatives AND statistics Searched on www.hotbot.com Animal ethics: Animal experimentation - the facts - BBC Animal Testing and Ethics - Santa Clara University The Three R's: The Way Forward - Center for Alternatives to ... 11 Facts About Animal Testing | DoSomething.org | Volunteer ......
Words: 376 - Pages: 2
...Animal Experiments Should Be Prohibited Ducduy Tran Solbridge International School of Business Animal experiments should be prohibited Nowadays, following the development of society, many environmental implications have also risen, such as air pollution, water pollution, and greenhouse effect…These problems cause a lot of dangerous diseases which can kill people. Scientists are trying hard to discover the treatment for these diseases. In order to achieve that, they have to use several methods, and animal experimentation is one of those. Some people think that, animal experiments give people a lot of benefits. I agree with this opinion, but I think it’s only true in the past because these days, thanks to the development of technology in medicine, animal experiments is now not necessary and should be prohibited for the following reasons. The first reason I object to animal testing is that, animal experiments are unethical. To be more specific, animals were always unconsidered and were seen as unemotional beings so people thought experiments on animal are normal and necessary. However, after doing many research, scientists proved that animals have feelings just like human beings do. From the article “Do Animals Have Emotions? Of Course They Do!” by Marc Bekoff, author of The Emotional Lives of Animals, said that emotions are the presents that our creators gave us, both animals and human have them, thus when we describe the feelings of animals we will no longer use the quotation...
Words: 1193 - Pages: 5
...Critical 500 Is it ethically acceptable for companies to kill and injure animals in the process of testing products? There tends to be three sides taken amongst this argument. Side one involves people that believe that an animal life does not compare to that of a human life and therefore it causes no problem to test any product we may have on animals if it benefits the consumer, side two which consists of the opposing argument to this, consists of the people who are against animal testing and believe that it is cruel and unjust and no matter the situation cannot be justified. Finally the third argument is the middle ground which embodies both points from the for and against argument of animal testing, they say that animal testing is cruel however sometimes it can be justified if the pros out way the cons such as in medical product development. Animal testing has and will always be a hotly debated topic one reason for this is because of the money it brings to the economy. “Animal research is a multibillion-dollar industry. Much money can be made by researchers and their institutions, those that supply animals and equipment for experiments, and companies that sell products tested on animals.”( Yarri, Donna, 2005) It is unlikely that the people involved in animal testing are going to want to use more costly methods of experimentation because of the “rights” of animals and therefore will argue the point that animal research is justified. Another point that may be argued by...
Words: 637 - Pages: 3
...Jeremy Rifkin’s use of ethos in his article “A Change of Heart About Animals” (September 1, 2003) is not very effective in creating a strong argument that would change readers’ attitudes toward the treatment of animals and animal rights. Rifkin is an economic and social theorist, writer, public speaker, and activist that writes about the impact of scientific and technological changes on the economy and society. His work focuses mostly on the economy, science, technology, and political science but not so much on animal studies thus making him seem more of an animal rights activist rather than a knowledgeable source of information on animals. Consequently, Rifkin’s work has been critiqued a number of times because of the lack of scientific rigor...
Words: 285 - Pages: 2
