Is Animal Experimentation Necessary And Moral?
1 xxxxx Mr. Haupt
English 10
March 5, 2014 Is Animal Experimentation Necessary and Moral?
Background
Knowing the effectiveness of medical treatments, the toxicity of pharmaceuticals, and the safety of products for human use are possible because many products are first tested on animals. Animal experimentation has passionate supporters and detractors. Animal testing has been around since 500 B.C., when famous physicians such as Aristotle and Herophilus were experimenting on animals to discover the functions of living organisms. Aristotle’s belief was that animals lacked intelligence, so injustice did not apply to them. Theophrastus, a Greek philosopher and student of Aristotle, believed the opposite. He felt that animals can experience …show more content…
pain and that animal experimentation was offensive to the gods.
Public criticism of animal testing became significant in the 19th century.
Vivisection (dissection of a living organism) was originally practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and Alexandria. The increase in the owning of pets started an interest in an anti-vivisection movement, mainly in England. The Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection was formed in 1875, which was followed by the formation of a number of similar groups. Today, animal testing is widespread. “Millions of animals are used in laboratories around the world. Scientists may use 2 animals to test toxic chemicals or to develop new surgery techniques. They may cause cancers and infections in animals to study them and develop cures. They may kill the animals to collect tissues and study their cells” (“animal experimentation”). Both proponents and opponents of animal experimentation have their arguments as to why animal testing should or should not be allowed.
Side One: Animal Experimentation Is Ethical and …show more content…
Necessary
Proponents of animal experimentation say that it has unquestionably saved the lives of numerous children, adults, and even animals. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of animal experimentation is that hundreds of vaccinations and medicines have been created as a result of animal testing. It is said that almost every medical breakthrough in the past century has been a direct result of animal research (procon.org). Scientific developments such as cures for hepatitis and mumps and a vaccination for polio have come about because scientists were able to test new drugs on animals before they’re given to human beings (Ringach).
The advancement of human health requires animal experimentation to continue so that medicine and science can progress. Supporters argue in favor of animal experimentation by pointing out how much genetic material humans share with animals; it’s been said that the human species shares 95% of their genes with mice. This is why mice are an effective substitute for the human body (procon.org). Experimentation on mice has helped raise cancer survival rates. In addition, many medical procedures, such as hip replacement, kidney and heart transplants, and blood transfusions, were perfected on animals.
3
Animal experimentation has improved over the years, making it more humane in order to ensure both the animals’ health and the accuracy of the test results. The AWA (Animal Welfare Act) has been around since 1965 and sets standards for the living conditions of the animals being used in experiments and also requires that the animals receive veterinary check-ups. This act was created along with local and state laws to protect animals from harm. The AWA protects "any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm blooded animal.” It is in the best interests of scientists to treat animals well to ensure credible results. According to procon.org, “at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 's animal research facility, for example, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily, they can socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a ‘toy rotation program’ provides opportunities for play.” In 2011, a poll was conducted to see whether medical establishments believed that animal experimentation was a necessity. According to procon.org, “nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists contacted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% ‘agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.’" In addition to health organizations, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions permit animal experimentation as long as animals suffer no unnecessary pain and there’s a distinct possibility that the results will be highly beneficial to human beings. Animal experimentation has opened the doors to scientific research that can ultimately save thousands, if not millions, of lives. Animal experimentation has already aided in scientists making large strides in the world of medicine, and it is necessary for these experiments to continue for science to advance farther still.
4
Side 2: Animal Experimentation Is Unethical and Inhumane According to adversaries of animal experimentation, there are many reasons why animal testing should not be allowed. The first argument is that animal experimentation is a form of animal cruelty. Procon.org claims that “according to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and ‘killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.’” One example of animal cruelty procon.org shares is that sometimes certain shampoos are tested on rabbits, requiring their eyes to be forced open with clips, sometimes for days on end. Gale Viewpoints in Text backs up the idea that experimentation is a kind of cruelty, and says, “each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing; biology lessons; medical training; and curiosity-driven experimentation. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed.”
Another argument against animal experimentation is that with modern technology, there are alternative methods of testing drugs without using animals. Procon.org makes the claim that using Petri dishes to study cell cultures can produce more reliable results than testing on animals because genuine human cells can be used. In addition, computer models can test the toxicity of certain substances without experimenting on animals. Animals can now be replaced with more 5 effective test subjects, allowing scientists to gain better results, and allowing animals to live their lives in the wild.
A third reason why some people believe animal testing should be terminated is that test results are not always one hundred percent accurate. Sometimes products that are safe for animals prove to be unsafe for humans. In the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill, thalidomide, which had been successfully tested on animals. This pill had a defect, though, and resulted in the deformities of 10,000 newborn babies. In addition to this, procon.org reports that, “animal tests on the arthritis drug, Vioxx, showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.”
Even though a certain drug may appear to be highly effective on animals, it does not 100% guarantee the same effect on humans. There is always the occasional medicine defect that does not come to light when tested on animals, and these defects can result in the loss or damaging of hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
Conclusion
The crux of the issue of animal experimentation is whether or not we think it is absolutely necessary and moral to experiment on animals in the hope for benefits to
humans.
Animal experimentation has been around for centuries. In the past decades, people felt that we truly needed animals to test possible drugs and commercial products for humans. Animal testing has proven to be very beneficial, but with modern technology, a question has come to the 6 minds of millions of Americans: are animals still necessary for the production of human drugs, or is there another, alternate resource that could take the place of animals? The answer to that question is: yes, there are alternate options for drug and product testing. However, it is not clear how effective those solutions are in comparison to animal testing. The answer to the moral question of animal experimentation rests with more research into the effectiveness of alternative test subjects. If the alternatives do not produce usable results, then animal testing may be the best method available.
This issue hinges on what society decides is morally right, and what is believed to be necessary for humanity. Hopefully, society will decide upon a path that is beneficial to humans and is in the best interests of animals, too.
7
Works Cited
"Animal Experimentation: Key Question." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
ProCon.org. "Animal Testing ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Ringach, Dario. "Animal Experimentation: Stopping Animal Research Would Be Immoral." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Sullivan, Kristie. "No More Excuses for Testing Cosmetics on Animals." Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. 11 Apr. 2012: n.p. SIRS
Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
English 10
March 5, 2014 Is Animal Experimentation Necessary and Moral?
Background
Knowing the effectiveness of medical treatments, the toxicity of pharmaceuticals, and the safety of products for human use are possible because many products are first tested on animals. Animal experimentation has passionate supporters and detractors. Animal testing has been around since 500 B.C., when famous physicians such as Aristotle and Herophilus were experimenting on animals to discover the functions of living organisms. Aristotle’s belief was that animals lacked intelligence, so injustice did not apply to them. Theophrastus, a Greek philosopher and student of Aristotle, believed the opposite. He felt that animals can experience …show more content…
pain and that animal experimentation was offensive to the gods.
Public criticism of animal testing became significant in the 19th century.
Vivisection (dissection of a living organism) was originally practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and Alexandria. The increase in the owning of pets started an interest in an anti-vivisection movement, mainly in England. The Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection was formed in 1875, which was followed by the formation of a number of similar groups. Today, animal testing is widespread. “Millions of animals are used in laboratories around the world. Scientists may use 2 animals to test toxic chemicals or to develop new surgery techniques. They may cause cancers and infections in animals to study them and develop cures. They may kill the animals to collect tissues and study their cells” (“animal experimentation”). Both proponents and opponents of animal experimentation have their arguments as to why animal testing should or should not be allowed.
Side One: Animal Experimentation Is Ethical and …show more content…
Necessary
Proponents of animal experimentation say that it has unquestionably saved the lives of numerous children, adults, and even animals. Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of animal experimentation is that hundreds of vaccinations and medicines have been created as a result of animal testing. It is said that almost every medical breakthrough in the past century has been a direct result of animal research (procon.org). Scientific developments such as cures for hepatitis and mumps and a vaccination for polio have come about because scientists were able to test new drugs on animals before they’re given to human beings (Ringach).
The advancement of human health requires animal experimentation to continue so that medicine and science can progress. Supporters argue in favor of animal experimentation by pointing out how much genetic material humans share with animals; it’s been said that the human species shares 95% of their genes with mice. This is why mice are an effective substitute for the human body (procon.org). Experimentation on mice has helped raise cancer survival rates. In addition, many medical procedures, such as hip replacement, kidney and heart transplants, and blood transfusions, were perfected on animals.
3
Animal experimentation has improved over the years, making it more humane in order to ensure both the animals’ health and the accuracy of the test results. The AWA (Animal Welfare Act) has been around since 1965 and sets standards for the living conditions of the animals being used in experiments and also requires that the animals receive veterinary check-ups. This act was created along with local and state laws to protect animals from harm. The AWA protects "any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm blooded animal.” It is in the best interests of scientists to treat animals well to ensure credible results. According to procon.org, “at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 's animal research facility, for example, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily, they can socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a ‘toy rotation program’ provides opportunities for play.” In 2011, a poll was conducted to see whether medical establishments believed that animal experimentation was a necessity. According to procon.org, “nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists contacted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% ‘agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.’" In addition to health organizations, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religions permit animal experimentation as long as animals suffer no unnecessary pain and there’s a distinct possibility that the results will be highly beneficial to human beings. Animal experimentation has opened the doors to scientific research that can ultimately save thousands, if not millions, of lives. Animal experimentation has already aided in scientists making large strides in the world of medicine, and it is necessary for these experiments to continue for science to advance farther still.
4
Side 2: Animal Experimentation Is Unethical and Inhumane According to adversaries of animal experimentation, there are many reasons why animal testing should not be allowed. The first argument is that animal experimentation is a form of animal cruelty. Procon.org claims that “according to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and ‘killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.’” One example of animal cruelty procon.org shares is that sometimes certain shampoos are tested on rabbits, requiring their eyes to be forced open with clips, sometimes for days on end. Gale Viewpoints in Text backs up the idea that experimentation is a kind of cruelty, and says, “each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing; biology lessons; medical training; and curiosity-driven experimentation. Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed.”
Another argument against animal experimentation is that with modern technology, there are alternative methods of testing drugs without using animals. Procon.org makes the claim that using Petri dishes to study cell cultures can produce more reliable results than testing on animals because genuine human cells can be used. In addition, computer models can test the toxicity of certain substances without experimenting on animals. Animals can now be replaced with more 5 effective test subjects, allowing scientists to gain better results, and allowing animals to live their lives in the wild.
A third reason why some people believe animal testing should be terminated is that test results are not always one hundred percent accurate. Sometimes products that are safe for animals prove to be unsafe for humans. In the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill, thalidomide, which had been successfully tested on animals. This pill had a defect, though, and resulted in the deformities of 10,000 newborn babies. In addition to this, procon.org reports that, “animal tests on the arthritis drug, Vioxx, showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.”
Even though a certain drug may appear to be highly effective on animals, it does not 100% guarantee the same effect on humans. There is always the occasional medicine defect that does not come to light when tested on animals, and these defects can result in the loss or damaging of hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.
Conclusion
The crux of the issue of animal experimentation is whether or not we think it is absolutely necessary and moral to experiment on animals in the hope for benefits to
humans.
Animal experimentation has been around for centuries. In the past decades, people felt that we truly needed animals to test possible drugs and commercial products for humans. Animal testing has proven to be very beneficial, but with modern technology, a question has come to the 6 minds of millions of Americans: are animals still necessary for the production of human drugs, or is there another, alternate resource that could take the place of animals? The answer to that question is: yes, there are alternate options for drug and product testing. However, it is not clear how effective those solutions are in comparison to animal testing. The answer to the moral question of animal experimentation rests with more research into the effectiveness of alternative test subjects. If the alternatives do not produce usable results, then animal testing may be the best method available.
This issue hinges on what society decides is morally right, and what is believed to be necessary for humanity. Hopefully, society will decide upon a path that is beneficial to humans and is in the best interests of animals, too.
7
Works Cited
"Animal Experimentation: Key Question." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
ProCon.org. "Animal Testing ProCon.org." ProCon.org. 5 Feb. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Ringach, Dario. "Animal Experimentation: Stopping Animal Research Would Be Immoral." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Sullivan, Kristie. "No More Excuses for Testing Cosmetics on Animals." Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. 11 Apr. 2012: n.p. SIRS
Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.