Argumentative Essay: The Pros Of Animal Testing
Cross your heart, hope to die, stick a needle in your eye
Awakening with a large needle in your eye, you realize you have been stripped from your mother and thrown into a small cold cage. A few hours later, you begin to go blind: something grabs you, another needle is pierced into you once again, and you start to fade away. Countless animals awaken to the same grim fate. They have no idea what is happening or what they did to deserve this treatment. Every day, every hour, and every minute, a laboratory test animal dies from horrible product testing. It is estimated that 72 animals are needed for just 1 product to be tested (“Proctor & Gamble” 2). While medical capabilities have advanced to the point where a cure for cancer could be right around the corner, yet an ancient practice is still being exploited. Old traditions die hard, but there are many alternatives that are starting to catch on that could end animal testing and at …show more content…
least lessen the pain on lab animals.
While alternatives are the main focus, the true nature and meaning of animal testing is in need of knowing. Vivisection is the technical term for “animal experimentation” (“What is Vivisection?”). The two main types of animal testing or “vivisection” are cosmetic product testing and disease/illness tests. These include make-ups, shampoos, other toiletries, finding vaccines, and inflicting animals with diseases to track the outcomes. The so-called purpose of this testing is to note the reactions of the products when applied to the animal and approve them for human use. The cruelties of these tests are beyond the human imagination. Companies like L’Oreal, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor and Gamble continue to claim they are “family” orientated while they test on millions of animals each year. China is the main export receiver of these company’s products. The European Union (EU) is banning the entrance of products that are tested on animals into the EU area (“Cosmetics and Household…”). In return if the companies want to sell in China, they have to find another means of testing. However, major companies like this are not mandated to use animals for testing. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires any sort of product testing to be done. They, in fact, do not condone or enforce any testing on animals (“Animal Testing and Cosmetics”).
The question remains of why do they still use the animals if they aren’t required to? It all leads back to the history of animal testing. The belief is that since medical advancements have come so far while using animals that it must being helping. On the contrary, the Wright brothers renovated aviation devices and today we use great new technology to fly. Their simplistic and cumbersome inventions are no longer used because science has progressed to new heights (“Are Animal Experiments…”). Animal testing is predominantly out dated, yet the need for it is more demanding than ever. It seems that vivisection is more of a “default method” in the testing world (“If Animal Testing…”). At its core, animal testing is a lazy man’s choice that might not be giving reliable results.
Typically animals do not suffer from the same diseases that humans are afflicted by. When polio was at its peak, scientists were working at finding the right vaccine through chimpanzee studies. However, chimps do not contract polio orally like humans. Instead chimps can only contract it nasally. Once the scientists found out, they continued to try to make it work. In the end, it delayed the production for the vaccine. The Humane Society International states that “…animal tests are time- and resource-intensive, restrictive in the number of substances that can be tested, provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and in many cases do not correctly predict real-world human reactions” (“What’s Wrong with Animal Testing”). On top of the difference in species, animals are unable to understand the situation and hand, or paw. Stress can easily affect humans just as it can animals. Stress can completely change the way a test affects an animal or humans body. How reliable can a test be when the animals could already be sick or mentally unfit due to grueling stresses? 50-99.7% of animal product testing fails to predict factual human outcomes (“Are Animal Experiments…”). Animals like mice, rats, rabbits, fish, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, non-human primates, and even more are used in testing (What types of animals are used?).Being mammalian (excluding fish and birds) is really the only basic component humans and the test subjects share. Mainly, the certain types are chosen due to the small gestation periods that help with subject replacement. They are also fairly easy subjects to buy and get to the laboratories. Lastly, they are very basic in needs, and don’t require much maintenance. It seems that the easy availability and fast regeneration of population may outweigh the reliability of the outcomes of testing. What gives hope for a new horizon of vivisection is the groundbreaking alternatives that are making a main stream appearance. Scientists are slowly making way with alternatives that could not only end animal testing, but give almost perfect outcomes .Part of a PETA article below gives light to how these alternatives are going to change the current standard.
Non-animal methods usually take less time to complete than crude, archaic animal test that they replace. In addition, they cost only a fraction of what animal experiments cost and are not affected by species differences that make applying test results to humans difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer modeling technologies as well as studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”).
In vitro (test tubes), organs-on-a-chip, antibodies, microdosing, MRI, fMRI, EEG,PET, and CT scans are a few of the leaders in the new testing alternatives.
Cell-based human in vitro is used for toxicity screenings for drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). Organs-on-a-chip are quite different in the way that they are devises that have human cells that are 3-dimensional and imitate a person’s organs. It can be used for disease studies, toxicity, and drug tests. Antibodies were originally used to inject cancer cells into mice, but now are produced with DNA that is artificially made in laboratories or taken from human cells. The varieties of scans are used to scan the regions of the brain and how it is affected. A single neuron can be studied and then researchers can “induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). Even though the explanation of these tests may seem very technical and confusing, they are the new wave of help for the
animals. A lot more can be said about animal testing and a lot more can be done about it. Like other animal based issues, it tends to be overlooked. Animals can’t speak, can’t protest, and can’t fight for themselves. While the testing seems to be more efficient and easier to conduct, the alternatives prove it wrong. A cliché at its best is that a practice this old is still being used in this age of great new medical techniques. Some easy ways to help save the animals are writing letters to companies and stating you aren’t going to buy their products, buying non-animal tested products, and even educating others about the situations. However, a realization that no matter how hard people try to end it, it seems that animal testing may never come to an end. The American public wants and deserves no less than these new ways of testing to ensure safe products that do not harm others in the process (“Less testing on animals, better science” 2).
Works Cited
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. peta.org. n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2013.
“Are animal experiments needed for medical progress?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2013
“Cosmetics and Household-Product Animal Testing.” PETA. peta.org. n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
Huff, Ethan. “Proctor & Gamble steeped in cruel animal testing of its consumer products, charge activist websites. Natural News. naturalnews.com. 27 March 2012. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.
“If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2013.
Moran, Jim and Paul Locke. “Less Testing on Animals, Better Science.” Baltimore Sun. baltimoresun.com Web. 12 Sept. 2013
“What is Vivisection?” neavs. neavs. n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2013.
“What types of animals are used?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. Web. 10 Sept. 2013.
“What’s wrong with animal testing?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. Web. 10 Sept. 2013.
Awakening with a large needle in your eye, you realize you have been stripped from your mother and thrown into a small cold cage. A few hours later, you begin to go blind: something grabs you, another needle is pierced into you once again, and you start to fade away. Countless animals awaken to the same grim fate. They have no idea what is happening or what they did to deserve this treatment. Every day, every hour, and every minute, a laboratory test animal dies from horrible product testing. It is estimated that 72 animals are needed for just 1 product to be tested (“Proctor & Gamble” 2). While medical capabilities have advanced to the point where a cure for cancer could be right around the corner, yet an ancient practice is still being exploited. Old traditions die hard, but there are many alternatives that are starting to catch on that could end animal testing and at …show more content…
least lessen the pain on lab animals.
While alternatives are the main focus, the true nature and meaning of animal testing is in need of knowing. Vivisection is the technical term for “animal experimentation” (“What is Vivisection?”). The two main types of animal testing or “vivisection” are cosmetic product testing and disease/illness tests. These include make-ups, shampoos, other toiletries, finding vaccines, and inflicting animals with diseases to track the outcomes. The so-called purpose of this testing is to note the reactions of the products when applied to the animal and approve them for human use. The cruelties of these tests are beyond the human imagination. Companies like L’Oreal, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor and Gamble continue to claim they are “family” orientated while they test on millions of animals each year. China is the main export receiver of these company’s products. The European Union (EU) is banning the entrance of products that are tested on animals into the EU area (“Cosmetics and Household…”). In return if the companies want to sell in China, they have to find another means of testing. However, major companies like this are not mandated to use animals for testing. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires any sort of product testing to be done. They, in fact, do not condone or enforce any testing on animals (“Animal Testing and Cosmetics”).
The question remains of why do they still use the animals if they aren’t required to? It all leads back to the history of animal testing. The belief is that since medical advancements have come so far while using animals that it must being helping. On the contrary, the Wright brothers renovated aviation devices and today we use great new technology to fly. Their simplistic and cumbersome inventions are no longer used because science has progressed to new heights (“Are Animal Experiments…”). Animal testing is predominantly out dated, yet the need for it is more demanding than ever. It seems that vivisection is more of a “default method” in the testing world (“If Animal Testing…”). At its core, animal testing is a lazy man’s choice that might not be giving reliable results.
Typically animals do not suffer from the same diseases that humans are afflicted by. When polio was at its peak, scientists were working at finding the right vaccine through chimpanzee studies. However, chimps do not contract polio orally like humans. Instead chimps can only contract it nasally. Once the scientists found out, they continued to try to make it work. In the end, it delayed the production for the vaccine. The Humane Society International states that “…animal tests are time- and resource-intensive, restrictive in the number of substances that can be tested, provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body, and in many cases do not correctly predict real-world human reactions” (“What’s Wrong with Animal Testing”). On top of the difference in species, animals are unable to understand the situation and hand, or paw. Stress can easily affect humans just as it can animals. Stress can completely change the way a test affects an animal or humans body. How reliable can a test be when the animals could already be sick or mentally unfit due to grueling stresses? 50-99.7% of animal product testing fails to predict factual human outcomes (“Are Animal Experiments…”). Animals like mice, rats, rabbits, fish, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, non-human primates, and even more are used in testing (What types of animals are used?).Being mammalian (excluding fish and birds) is really the only basic component humans and the test subjects share. Mainly, the certain types are chosen due to the small gestation periods that help with subject replacement. They are also fairly easy subjects to buy and get to the laboratories. Lastly, they are very basic in needs, and don’t require much maintenance. It seems that the easy availability and fast regeneration of population may outweigh the reliability of the outcomes of testing. What gives hope for a new horizon of vivisection is the groundbreaking alternatives that are making a main stream appearance. Scientists are slowly making way with alternatives that could not only end animal testing, but give almost perfect outcomes .Part of a PETA article below gives light to how these alternatives are going to change the current standard.
Non-animal methods usually take less time to complete than crude, archaic animal test that they replace. In addition, they cost only a fraction of what animal experiments cost and are not affected by species differences that make applying test results to humans difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer modeling technologies as well as studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”).
In vitro (test tubes), organs-on-a-chip, antibodies, microdosing, MRI, fMRI, EEG,PET, and CT scans are a few of the leaders in the new testing alternatives.
Cell-based human in vitro is used for toxicity screenings for drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). Organs-on-a-chip are quite different in the way that they are devises that have human cells that are 3-dimensional and imitate a person’s organs. It can be used for disease studies, toxicity, and drug tests. Antibodies were originally used to inject cancer cells into mice, but now are produced with DNA that is artificially made in laboratories or taken from human cells. The varieties of scans are used to scan the regions of the brain and how it is affected. A single neuron can be studied and then researchers can “induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). Even though the explanation of these tests may seem very technical and confusing, they are the new wave of help for the
animals. A lot more can be said about animal testing and a lot more can be done about it. Like other animal based issues, it tends to be overlooked. Animals can’t speak, can’t protest, and can’t fight for themselves. While the testing seems to be more efficient and easier to conduct, the alternatives prove it wrong. A cliché at its best is that a practice this old is still being used in this age of great new medical techniques. Some easy ways to help save the animals are writing letters to companies and stating you aren’t going to buy their products, buying non-animal tested products, and even educating others about the situations. However, a realization that no matter how hard people try to end it, it seems that animal testing may never come to an end. The American public wants and deserves no less than these new ways of testing to ensure safe products that do not harm others in the process (“Less testing on animals, better science” 2).
Works Cited
“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. peta.org. n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2013.
“Are animal experiments needed for medical progress?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2013
“Cosmetics and Household-Product Animal Testing.” PETA. peta.org. n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
Huff, Ethan. “Proctor & Gamble steeped in cruel animal testing of its consumer products, charge activist websites. Natural News. naturalnews.com. 27 March 2012. Web. 23 Aug. 2013.
“If animal testing is so unreliable, why does it continue?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2013.
Moran, Jim and Paul Locke. “Less Testing on Animals, Better Science.” Baltimore Sun. baltimoresun.com Web. 12 Sept. 2013
“What is Vivisection?” neavs. neavs. n.d. Web. 03 Sept. 2013.
“What types of animals are used?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. Web. 10 Sept. 2013.
“What’s wrong with animal testing?” Humane Society International. hsi.org. Web. 10 Sept. 2013.