The 6 craziest animal experiments. The best efforts should be made in other forms of testing first to diminish the most catastrophic consequences of those tests though. Almost all states actively research on animals at present. I do think that the number of animals used should be reduced, and that they don't starve or hurt the animal, unless it is seriously necessary. While more research might expand society's knowledge base, why is this research necessary and how can it be justified? Personally, I think animal testing will eventually become a relic of the past as we become more able to grow single, functioning organs to test on, and computer simulations become more accurate and reliable.
The lab-grown skin is used to test cosmetics and help reduce the number of animals used in testing. Moreover, testing on animals has contributed to the creation of medicine and treatments that have saved many lives. Once again, two sides to this issue of whether animals should be used for testing stand. One problematic notion of animal testing could be that it is not voluntary. In vitro in glass testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.
But I am not surprised by the thought that in a complicated system like an animal body, nothing is as good as the real deal. The act specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, they don't have to provide pain relief. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. I believe that my life is as important as another animals life and I strongly think that I should not test on other forms of life just to put my own best interest in front. Animals can become your friend so don't kill them for an project. That blog written by your roommate about how to reduce stress and anxiety during exam week might provide some useful advice. Just as it sounds, this article provides a brief discussion of six strange and sometimes controversial animal experiments.
Yes, replacing animals in science with different alternatives has several advantages. Controversy and debate surround animal testing, as advocates of animal welfare attempt to argue against scientists who use animals to ensure the safety of commercial products. He contributed this article to LiveScience's. To kill a lab rat. According to those in favor of animal testing, to evaluate a drug side effects it requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs of the body. Options that don't come at the expense of other living beings. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species.
Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. They would then compare the results with the humans once they were used as test subjects. Animals and humans, aren't completely different. We have little knowledge of space, or science. I though you relayed well the positive and negative aspect of the issue. There are a number of alternatives we can use that are cheaper, quicker and more accurate than testing on animals.
Sometimes the animals react badly towards medicines that might save the human race! And; Animal research can only be done, if there is no non-animal alternative. Scientists of course, know a decent amount of information, but there's more to be uncovered. Con Animal testing should not be used. Animal research is very important to humans. A majority of researchers argue that no alternatives to animal testing exist, and that a long-standing tradition of animal testing takes precedence over other any other testing methods developed. Animal testing is cruelty to animals, yet scientists get away with it. Looking for even more help writing a persuasive essay? This article provides a brief history of animal testing, including animal testing completed by the Greeks and Romans in the 2nd century and more recent testing on chimpanzees.
In addition, the commercial products industry argues that public health and welfare depend upon animal testing and the elimination of said testing would subsequently lead to the manufacture and sale of unsafe or hazardous products. This lengthy New York Times article describes a variety of tests, surgeries, and other experiments a giant research lab is using in an attempt to re-engineer farm animals. American women use an average of 12 personal care products per day, so product safety is of great importance. Animals are similar to human beings in a variety ways and there is no other adequate choice to testing on a living. That being said, the above research makes it apparent that using animals against their will in the name of science is not only cruel but seemingly unnecessary.
Within the commercial products industry, animal toxicity data tends to be the de facto standard for settling safety issues when dealing with said products. We say to stop animal testing when we eat them. In conclusion animal testing is wrong. Many, however, question whether this practice will be effective as it too may cause some distress to animals. . As said earlier, advocates in favor claim that animal testing greatly contributed to the development of many cures and treatments for conditions such as breast cancer, childhood leukemia, malaria, and tuberculosis. Are there any advantages in non-animal testing? It's no different than testing things like this on babies and toddlers; innocent and helpless.
While the animals are a potential benefit to both the farms and the consumer, the harm and pain inflicted on the animals are extreme. Toxicology testing uncovers any adverse effects that may result from exposure to certain chemicals or commercial products, and provides quantitative exposure-response data. I'm not saying humans are far more important than animals, but this systems works both ways. As new evidence pops up, theories are dis-proven. Not only that but certain conditions like blindness cannot be studied in tissue cultures. Animal testing is one of those topics that can polarize opinions.
I recently learned about a new website on ProCon. As usual, those against animal testing counter it by saying that it does not do enough and more can be done. Have a help revise and edit! However, I will not get too deep into that. Marc Bekoff, emeritus professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, is one of the world's pioneering cognitive ethologists, a Guggenheim Fellow, and co-founder with Jane Goodall of Ethologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Some chemicals that are ineffective on, or harmful to, animals prove valuable when used by humans. Just this week, I did an interview with a Brazilian newspaper about these issues and I know that there is worldwide interest in this question.