Introduction:
Do humans have the right to test on animals to better and/or save our lives? Yes, we believe we do. Animal testing is one of the most cost efficient and effective ways to experiment the effects of certain chemicals and develop new treatments for diseases and new cosmetic products. Animal testing is very controversial. There are people who believe that animal testing is cruel and inhumane to the animals and therefore should be illegal. We believe that the benefits humans receive from animal testing outweigh the pain the animals may feel. We have anthropocentric rights that permit us to test on animals for our benefit. Animal activist groups are very vocal about their opposition of animal testing. They care because they believe animals should have the same rights as humans. The families of cancer patients and other people with serious diseases as well as many scientists and people in the medical field often support animal testing.
Our Position:
The majority of the scientific community agrees that animal testing is necessary to help humans because it has lead to some of the greatest scientific advances of all time. Animal testing has helped provide antibiotics and vaccines, insulin for diabetes, local and general anesthetics, and has made possible advances in medical technology such as blood transfusion, kidney dialysis, and the heart lung machine. Without animal research, doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. Also, without animal research, 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, and polio, which could kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults each year.[1]
These statistics highlight the main reasons for which animal research needs to continue. First, despite great advances in science and technology, animals still cannot be replaced completely by non-animal methods. This is because there are still too many serious conditions that we cannot cure or treat adequately without animal testing. It is also necessary that new surgical techniques are first preformed on animals because they need to be developed and practiced on living creatures.
We all inherently have rights when we are born, some of which include rights to financial resources, human health, identity, and aesthetic experiences. Cosmetics and medicine provide jobs and income to thousands of people worldwide. Our health and quality of life is improved by animal tested products like medicine. We are able to establish identity and enjoy a personal aesthetic experience thanks to cosmetics. All of these reasons give us the right to test animals as we see fit no matter what the consequence since the lives of animals are worth improving and saving lives.[2]
Without animal testing in the future medical advances would come to a standstill while everyone switched over to non-animal testing methods. Even after something is proven safe by non-animal methods more products will have to be tested on volunteer humans before approved. This is more costly because of the compensation required along with the cost of switching testing systems making a totally non-animal testing situation unfeasible. This reliance on human volunteers also slows the process and is less controlled then in a laboratory setting. Without animal testing we could miss finding cures for diseases and substantial benefits to human kind.
Their Position:
Animal testing has allowed us to reach new heights in medical research and cosmetic development but there are those who oppose it. They argue that testing on animals doesn’t accurately measure what will happen to humans. There are animal free alternatives that are better. Animal testing is a cruel and outdated practice. These are the main arguments against animal testing. The first argument states that if something is animal tested and passes for safe it won’t necessarily be safe for humans. This has happened before but it has also happened that animal testing led to vaccines for rabies, polio, measles, mumps, and tuberculosis which had the same effect in humans as in the animals tested [3]. There are alternatives to animal testing some of which include synthetic skins, computer analysis, and stem and genetically modified cells [4]. But these alternatives can’t predict what will happen in a whole body system. Computer analysis can also be flawed due to extrapolation, or guessing. Lastly animal testing in this day and age is regulated which involves getting permission to test on animals at all and includes using painkillers where potentially pain could be caused to the animal.
Conclusion:
In conclusion animal testing is needed now and in the future to better our human lives. Advances in medicines combating diseases and conditions extend and better human quality of life thanks to animal testing. We believe that the life of a mouse is worth development of cosmetic products that better our health, identity, and financial situations. The lives of thousands of mice are worth saving a life or extending it. Without animal testing in the future we will miss opportunities for finding cures and new cosmetic products that improve our quality of life.
References:
Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research. Animals in Research. (2009)
http://www.sfbr.org/About/animals.aspx
Dr. Hull. Class Language for Environmental Values (2009)
https://scholar.vt.edu/access/content/group/58968d09-f02d-44f1-ba36-ae443ea60a13/FOR_2554_13119_200901/Course_Documents/PUBLIC/values_language.pdf
Roberta Goli. The Use of Animals for Research. (2009)
http://scientificethics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_use_of_animals_for_research
Hofer T, Gerner I, Gundert-Remy U, Liebsch M, Schulte A, Spielmann H, Vogel R, Wettig K. Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation. Arch. Toxicol. (2004) 78:549–564.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Team A believes that animals should be tested on because the benefits for humans outweigh the costs for animals. Through animal testing, numerous vaccines and cures have been found such as rabies, polio, measles, mumps, and tuberculosis. If all testing converted to non-animal testing, then medicinal research would come to a standstill. They also emphasize that testing on animals is economically advantageous to the supplier and the consumer. By testing products on animals, it improves the quality of life and provides jobs and income for thousands of people.
ReplyDeleteIn your paper you talk alot about the medical testing that is done on animals and you don't talk very much about the cosmetic testing. It is much easier to defend animal testing if it is to develop a new life saving vaccine but what if it is to develop a new lip stick or face cream. Animal testing to save lives is one thing but animal testing for such trivial things like make-up and hair dye is another all together.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argued for animal testing for medicine and cosmetics. Group A’s position clearly states that animal testing is necessary in order to help humans, and advance in the scientific and medical world. Group A argues that it has come to the human race’s rescue time and time again, and helped provide antibiotics and vaccines. Group A presents a large variety of statistics that show the amount of human lives saved due to animal testing. Group A also makes the argument that despite great advances in science and technology, animals still cannot be replaced completely by non-animal methods, because there are still too many serious conditions that we cannot cure or treat adequately without animal testing. Finally Group A argues that without animal testing we could miss finding cures for diseases and substantial benefits to human kind.
ReplyDelete---Kirsten Dobson
Group A made some strong points in favor of medial testing, which I feel are pretty hard to argue against, but I felt there was little argument for the cosmetic side of the argument, which is understandable, but still would have been interesting to read more of.
ReplyDelete-Michael Call
"We are able to establish identity and enjoy a personal aesthetic experience thanks to cosmetics. All of these reasons give us the right to test animals as we see fit no matter what the consequence since the lives of animals are worth improving and saving lives."
ReplyDeleteThe benefits provided by cosmetics are not essential to our livelihood. We can live without mascara and skin cream. Do you honestly believe that it is worth the lives of animals, "no matter what the consequence," just so we can look a little prettier, knowing that countless animals endured cruel tests? Our knowledge of the human body and cosmetics has allowed us to create products without animal testing that work just as well. Supporters of testing may argue that this knowledge is a result of previous animal experimentation, but we no longer need to use these methods. That's like saying our economy as we know it was built on slavery and human rights violations centuries ago, so we shouldn't condemn these practices today.
Group A’s position on animal testing is that animal testing is fine to benefit humans. The group states that the benefits to humans outweigh the cost of the animals’ life. They prove their point with facts about diseases that were cured partially threw animal testing. I agree with many aspects of Group A’s position. I think that if a human life is in danger than it is worth saving no matter what the cost. We have many diseases in this era and animal testing is one of the most proven techniques. I disagree, however, that animals should be used to test cosmetics. If one is just trying to find a way to look better they should not harm animals to figure things out.
ReplyDelete- Jacob Estienne
Group A argues that animal testing is acceptable because the benefits outweigh the pain of the animals.They did a good job of stating their argument as well as some probable arguments of the opposite side and giving several solutions to it. There was ample information on the medical success of animal testing, however, there was little on the testing of animals for cosmetic purposes. It would be nice to have more information on this.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of the points that were made here. Animals are the leading cause as to why the life expectancy of humans has increased. The amount of technology that has advanced in medicine is contributed to the ability to test it on animals. You have to use animals to test because if you use humans and they die because of a failure then it is not feasible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position and a lot of the points that were made. Animal testing has lead to very many great advancements in the medicine world. Each day, more and more lives are saved by discoveries that come from such testing. However, I do agree with one point made by a comment stated above. I am fully in agreement with animal testing for discoveries and advancements in medicine, but as far as for cosmetic products and things along those lines, I am against that type of animal testing. Your position didn't talk much about that side of animal testing, but all in all, I enjoyed your position and agree with much of what you presented.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with group A. If we are able to discover a cure for a deadly disease at the expense of an animal then we should do it. As humans, we are the "top dogs." We have the right and ability to use whatever resources available to improve our quality of life. All organisms work to improve their lives. So why can't we? Those who argue against this are not looking at the big picture. What do you say to the young boy/girl who has a disease that might've been curable if an animal had tested the potential medicine?
ReplyDelete-Ryan Mullaney
: Group A states that it is our birth right to utilize, manipulate, and exploit the resources of our environment, resources including animals. Also that animal testing in the medical field has saved or bettered countless lives. This is all well and good but if it is our rights as inhabitants of this earth to use these resources as we see fit how can we deny the same rights to our cohabiters of this planet, how can we say oh yes this is what is right because it is what benefits us, if we are born with rights why aren’t animals how do their births differ from ours what gives us the right to impede on another’s rights. And can you put a weight on life yes medical advances has saved human lives but how many rabbits squirrels or chimps died because of it is one life worth more than another who decides how many bunnies is worth the weight of one human.
ReplyDeleteThe position of saving human lives through animal testing seems to be a pretty strong argument for medical reasons. The advancements in medicine and examples definitely strengthen the argument. The argument for cosmetics is lacking though since I’m not sure there is a good reason for animal cosmetic testing. The position against the use of other testing methods should be stronger and I would have liked to read some specific examples of why the whole body system needs to be tested instead.
ReplyDeleteIt is argued that the benefit to human life from animal testing absolutely outweighs any pain experienced by animals involved. The rights to health, identity, aesthetic experience and financial resources are preserved and promoted through animal-tested products, taking priority before the lives of animals. While it the point is made that animal testing has played a role in expediently providing such life-saving medical/technological advances as blood transfusion, kidney dialysis, and chemotherapy, the basis for judging animal lives as less valuable is not brought up. Even some equalizing nihilism would be welcome.
ReplyDeleteGroup A does an excellent job taking a standpoint supported with facts on a difficult moral-based issue. They help to support animal testing by showing us that many medical advances have been presented to us by it. They include advances in medical technology such as blood transfusion, kidney dialysis, and the heart lung machine. We have also gotten vaccines for rabies, polio, measles, mumps and tuberculosis.
ReplyDeleteThey argue against the con-animal testing’s standpoint by saying that there have only been a few medical mishaps by drugs being released that were harmful to humans after failed animal testing. They also argue that alternatives that have been created cannot test whole body systems, and that regulations help to ease animal’s pain in testing. After our research we have found that countless lives have been destroyed after drugs were released that were not ready. Also, many viable alternatives have been found and more are being researched every day that allow for fewer animals to be tested and better results. I believe that they should take a look at statistics of failed experiments and take a better look at alternatives because after just a small amount of research many animal testing experiments have been completely replaced including eye irritancy tests.
But now a days the testing for cosmetics is being phased out, as in not necessary. You can see this much more widely now if you read the labels of products such as chapstick or nivea face washes, they all say "this product was made without testing or hurting of animals". If this is the case than group A is right not to have to mention much information on that front.
ReplyDeleteGroup A argued that all types of animal testing should be allowed because it can improve the condition of human lives. They said that the benefit to humans of medical advances as well as non-health related products such as cosmetics outweighs the suffering imposed on the animals tested. I believe they took the line too far. It is one thing to argue that animal testing can save lives, and quite another to say that the suffering of an animal is worth some makeup. Makeup to me is such a nonessential item that it seems heartless to exploit another creature for it.
ReplyDelete