B. Meaning – The British Royal Society argues that almost every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way (Gershoff, 2009). If the use of animals in experimentation is eliminated, there are many risks in the future for humans and nonhumans. “Those who oppose the use of animals say that alternate scientific methods can achieve the same or better results” (Gershoff, 2009, p. 3). Other methods of investigation provide useful information and the search for changes to animal experimentation is a main concern at the National Institutes of Health and medical research organizations all over the world.
Animal experimenting is cruel, harmful and inhumane; it is now and it always will be. What can you do to help? First of all you can read about groups such as PETA. PETA, which stands for PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TRATMENT OF ANIMALS provides a long list of companies, which experiment on animals; you can also find a list of companies, which are animal safe. Remember do NOT buy products from those companies that abuse animal rights.
Does animal testing really make a difference in scientific discoveries and product testing? Opposing Argument: The debate over whether we should test certain products and vaccines on animals has been a growing controversy since the day it began. There are different types of animal testing, and from an animal lover’s point-of-view, neither should be done. The first type of animal testing that takes place in laboratories is done by some cosmetic companies and other companies that make household products. This testing is done by pumping their products into the animals’ stomach, rubbing it on their skin, squirting the product into their eyes, or forcing the animals to inhale a spray.
Conducting experiments on animals for medical improvement has always been a highly controversial issue. Animal rights organisations such as PETA question the legitimacy of it, arguing that it is cruel and unacceptable while the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states clearly that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals if possible. In this case, though I commiserate the experimented animals, I support animal testings as they are vital to medical advancements for the sake of human race. Nearly all medical breakthroughs over the recent decades were based on the ground of animal testing. The polio vaccine were mainly tested on monkeys for amelioration.
Mayr (2000) begins by stating that many notions of biology in the last 150 years have been in opposition to popular belief. Those beliefs have ultimately been modified due almost entirely to the influential theories of Charles Darwin. Darwin’s first key influence, he claims, is the concept of evolution itself. At the time this notion was proposed, the majority of leading scientists and philosophers believed that the world as it existed now was the creation God, not the result of gradual natural forces. He goes on to say that branching evolution, a notion which suggests common decent, was also an alien concept at the time of proposition, as was the notion that evolution must be a gradual process with its fundamental mechanism being natural selection (Mayr, 2000).
They will test the value of new shampoo products by using rabbits as their tests subjects usually. In doing so the rabbit has to have its eye held open by clips so they can see how it is affecting the eyes; the rabbits stay like this for days without being able to blink or wash the materials out of their eyes. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. Animals go through so many cruel things, because of the cosmetic industry that is allowing it. [animal-testing.procon.org] Researchers in Aston University have made it known that it is not worth taking the lives of these animals for testing, because the things we’re trying to make happen with human bodies is very different from the animal body.
Animal testing has also been proven to be very inaccurate. In the past, animal tests established penicillin as a deadly drug, and asprin to be dangerous (Overton 1). Neither drug is dangerous to human beings, but they were believed to be due to improper testing methods. Therefore, animal testing is ineffective because results found in animals differentiate from those found in humans. Secondly, animal testing costs the pharmaceutical industry billions of dollars each year; money that can certainly be put to a better use.
Throughout the past two decades, extreme animal rights groups have claimed responsibility for hundreds of crimes and acts of terrorism, including arson, bombings, vandalism, burglary, animal release, and harassment. These crimes have caused damage costing more than one hundred million dollars. While some activists have been captured, animal rights terrorism cells, are extremely difficult to identify and most of the attacks remain unsolved. Although it has been overshadowed by Islamic terrorist threats since September 11, animal rights terrorism still remains one of the United States most active terrorist movements. This paper intends to explore the Animal Rights terrorist movement and prove that Animal Rights activists pose a significant domestic terror threat.
Vivisection: A Modern Day Scandal Why is it that in the scientific age of the twenty first century, we are still carrying out horrifically unethical and unreliable tests on defenceless animals in vain attempts to understand the effects of varying cosmetic or medical products in humans, an entirely different species? That is a question being asked of by a growing number of outraged people-animal rights activists, doctors, scholars and lay people alike – all of whom are guided by compassion, scientific fact and common sense. However there are still many who support this outdated, Victorian style methodology, claiming it to be humane, beneficial to human health and vital to modern medicine. This essay will explore the (ir) rationality associated with vivisection, using strong, peer reviewed evidence as the basis for the counter argument and it will also address the controversial issue of where their vested interests lie. Government figures show that three million animals per year in the UK alone are poisoned, surgically injured, driven insane, burned, irradiated, starved, electrocuted, kept in solitary confinement and eventually killed all in the name of research, in experiments that most people would find hard to even imagine.
When using someone from our own kind, we see it as cruel. But when using someone from another species, it is perfectly fine. “All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.” The significance of this novel is to open the eyes of the reader to the harsh realities of what is happening to animals in today’s society. Scientists perform harsh experiments that are often unnecessary and result in more experimentation. The United States government censors the cruelty from everyone in society, but they target