Many alternatives are accessible to use. Using other options instead of animals for research come with infinite benefits including less expensive procedures, more animals in their natural habitats, and unharmed organisms. It eliminates the factor of harming animals in order to proceed with scientific discoveries. Sullivan (2012) finds it “less spendy” and faster to use artificial skin and human eye models in addition to the fact they are more accurate methods. These non-animal methods replace those archaic animal tests, and take less time to complete.
An anti-doping program in the U.S tries to prevent sport athlete from cheating; unfortunately, became less strict often blocked by unions and contracts. The athletic drug testing is simple and straightforward, but another way is “mandate” force the athlete to agree to participate and have to obey the rules of the sport. In today world there, a great challenge determining to detect enhancing drugs because continually new chemicals make it nearly detectable. For example, “gene doping” a newly created enhance drugs that athletes can inject making them build muscle, which essentially be non-detectable. That a person born to be bodybuilders from the moment they start.
Often having 100 or more moles increases your risk of N.M. Another factor is gender, men are more likely to develop N.M. over females. Your age too can play a role and the risk increases for people over 60. N.M. can often develop in people that have a weak immune system. This can be from taking a specific medication or having an organ transplant. There is also a rare disease called Xeroderma Pigmentosum.
Politicians and other people fighting against embryonic stem cell research are saying that it would cost too much money to fund. Although this is true in that there are some things that may be more important for us to fund, wouldn’t stem cell research be worth it? There are so many diseases that it could potentially cure. There are several kinds of research going on now to cure other diseases that are costing just as much money, why not try one more thing. If there is potential to save several lives by doing research on one thing, why not do it.
Once there was a vaccination for small pox and this vaccination was required, then the disease finally died out. This will be able to happen on a much larger scale with many more diseases that are affecting Americans today. On the other hand, the vaccinations might not be able to keep up with the bacteria diseases, and then we have a problem that more people will get these diseases if the vaccinations cannot stop the diseases anymore. This could potentially create a “super disease” with the worst case scenario being that the world goes into a pandemic starting in America, and we have a “Black Plague” effect. Of course, there will be a very large amount of time for this effect to take place, plus this will be combated by medical professionals if it becomes a problem.
A further strength of measuring observable behaviours is that data is easier to quantify and collect making carrying out statistical tests easier. A weakness of behaviourism is that many of behaviourist theories have come from being tested on animals; for example skinners experiments on operant conditioning using pigeons. This makes the results less valid because humans are so much more complex than animals; animals only rely on basic natural instincts: food, reproduction, survival. So the research may not actually be applicable to humans. However, carrying out research on animals means that important theories can be tested that would otherwise be too wrong to test on humans.
But why should we? You know how much make-up we have? Think about it this way, the more makeup you wear or the more make-up they produce the more animals die. And really with all the makeup we already have, scientists just make more for competition. Cosmetologist’s think “oh, they already made mascara, but ill make a better one!
I believe radiation is slowly changing the world as we know it. Although it can be harmful or even deadly; scholars have come to recognize that the benefits greatly outweigh any contributing negative factors. Studies involving radiation have already brought so many more solutions into the equation, cancer being the largest on the scale. Further studies will hopefully shed more light on the unknown and provide us with even more treatment types. Only time will tell, but we are constantly on a hunt for knowledge, so I believe radiation will continue to play a major role in our world’s future
Genetic diversity will also be greatly reduced, leaving the human race susceptible to certain diseases. The scientists with all their knowledge and skills, do not know what future consequences are in store for the designer babies. In my opinion, the ramifications could be great for such a trivial purpose. Perhaps society would be better served if scientist focused more on the enormous importance of environmental influences on our health in the future. While the public may not know much about designer babies it is hugely debated within the scientific community.
In this research study, Dr. Gradin also reaffirmed that animals are naturally inquisitive. When pens are designed so they are circular, livestock will move forward to see what is ahead, but when animals move naturally based upon their own instinct, this virtually eliminates the need to drive livestock. The AMI reports also showed that high numbers of studies indicate that animals that are calm and unstressed when they are processed produce better meat products for human consumption. For instance, if an animal becomes agitated in a plant, stress hormones like adrenalin are released. If an animal is processed in this high stress state, meat will show quality defects that need to be cut down.