Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Yes Scientists have been able to advance their knowledge of human and animal health and disease dramatically by studying model organisms. This is around times more animals than the number used in scientific research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all across the country and all around the world.
The Animals Act of ensures that any research using animals must be fully assessed in terms of any harm to the animals. Works Cited Against Animal Testing. Humans cannot justify making life better for themselves by randomly torturing and executing thousands of animals per year to perform laboratory experiments or to test products.
This test is intensely painful for the animal, and blindness, scarring, and death are generally the end results.
Since death is the required endpoint, dying animals are not put out of their misery by euthanasia" According to Orlans, the animals suffer from "vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, convulsion, and internal bleeding. This page was last updated on Related Content: Refining the way the animals are cared for to help minimise any stress or pain, by using less invasive techniques where possible and improving medical care and living conditions.
Their decisions are made for them because they cannot vocalize their own preferences and choices. This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment" qtd.
Replacing, where possible, experiments using animals with alternative techniques such as cell culture, computer modelling or human volunteers instead of animals. The Draize test has been criticized for being unreliable and a needless waste of animal life.
Two of the most commonly used toxicity tests are the Draize test and the LD50 test, both of which are infamous for the intense pain and suffering they inflect upon experimental animals.
Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial "skin" instead of testing on animals.
Another alternative to this test is a product called Eyetex. In the Name of Science: Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of animals.
Some people will consider using animals in the lab to be immoral. To stop animal research would also be unethical as it would dramatically affect the development of new knowledge and flow of treatments to those with health conditions who desperately need them.
Animals feel pain and fear just as we do. Thus, animals should be treated with the same respect as humans.
These individuals feel that animals have no rights because they lack the capacity to understand or to knowingly exercise these rights. Also, animals have feelings, thoughts, goals, needs, and desires that are similar to human functions and capacities, and these similarities should be respected, not exploited, because of the selfishness of humans.
Computers have also been used to simulate and estimate the potential damage that a product or chemical can cause, and human tissues and cells have been used to examine the effects of harmful substances. Legally, all drugs have to be tested on animals for safety before they can be used in humans.
Many cosmetic companies, for example, have sought better ways to test their products without the use of animal subjects. Therefore, because effective means of product toxicity testing are available without the use of live animal specimens, testing potentially deadly substances on animals is unnecessary.
The reason that some medicines do not make it to market is that despite passing tests in animals they then fail in humans. Are animal models useful?
The alternative to using animals in the lab would be to test new drugs in humans. On the one hand it is considered morally wrong to use animals in this way solely for human benefit.
Finally, the testing of products on animals is completely unnecessary because viable alternatives are available. Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits.
But the value we place on the quality of their lives is determined by their perceived value to humans" Should animals be used for scientific research?
We do need to make sure that their rights are accepted, that they are not in pain for the experiment, and that they are cared for prior and after the research.
Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products. First, animals' rights are violated when they are used in research. Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina State University, states: "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment.
Animal research is needed for many uses for our scientists. Should animals be used for scientific research? We do need to make sure that their rights are accepted, that they are not in pain for the experiment, and that they are cared for prior and after the research. There are many advantages to why animals should be used for scientific research.
Animals should not be used in scientific research.
It has been observed that there are approximately 3 and million animals died per year in scientific research in UK and USA respectively. The statistics also shows that an animal dies for a scientific research almost in every three seconds.
of Animal Testing in Scientific Research Animal testing is not a new thing. For many centuries scientists and testers in research have used animals of all kinds. Most of the animals are small ones like rodents - rats, mice, hamsters and gerbils. Some dogs, cats and a variety of goats, monkeys and rabbits have also been used.
Animals, from the fruit fly to the mouse, are widely used in scientific research. They are crucial for allowing scientists to learn more about human biology and health, and for developing new medicines.
The use of animals in scientific research has long been the subject of heated debate. On the one.Download