An environmental theory that has come about because of the issues of treating animals as people has been whether or not the animals kept in captivity will face the loss of their habitat, will face the detrimental effects of global warming with no way to be rescued and also may be targeted by hunters. “Others worry about animals themselves. Steve Feldman, spokesman for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, says that keeping and breeding animals in captivity is sometimes the only way to safeguard a species. Opponents of captivity, he argues, too often ignore the reality of habitat loss, global warming, hunters, and poachers threatening species in the wild,” according to Berdik (2013). It is a very real possibility that by releasing an animal from captivity and essentially treating them as a human that the animal could face complete loss of their natural habitat and may end up extinct or near-extinct due to hunters targeting them.
[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. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. There is a big percentage from the 1950’s up till now that animal testing is flawed by not being correct when it is given to the people it is for. So why not just stop the animal experiments that are not just killing, but also torturing the animals.
Animals are a very unreliable way of testing whether something is safe or not, and there are other options available to researchers. Using blood from human volunteers to test for the presence of fever-causing contaminants in intravenous medicines can save hundreds of thousands of rabbits each year from traditional "pyrogen" tests. EpiSkin, EpiDerm and SkinEthic—each composed of artificial human skin—can save rabbits from painful skin corrosion and irritation tests. The Bovine Corneal Opacity and Permeability Test and Isolated Chicken Eye Test are techniques that use eyes from animals slaughtered for the meat industry instead of live rabbits to detect chemicals and products that are severely irritating to the eyes. The Reduced Local Lymph Node Assay for skin allergy testing makes it possible to reduce live animal usage by up to 75 percent compared with traditional guinea pig and mouse tests.
It is definitely remarkable that countless “terminal” illnesses were treated because of researches involving animal testing. People escaped death from diseases such as tuberculosis, cholera, and so on within a short period of time. Millions have been saved and the credit goes to animal testing. The general public holds negative opinion towards animal research even if they realise the benefits of it. Many develop this attitude because of the photos of rats and dogs in terrible status which are all over the Internet.
Risks involved The risk factors that comes along with keeping such animals are so high compared to the little advantages that people may claim to be getting from them. These animals are wild and keeping them might lead to some accidents which the owner would have to bear with. Because the owner cannot basically meet their needs, these animals may attack unexpectedly and cause great harm. They can also make the owner or anyone who access the premises contract some diseases such as TB, Herpes and even Rabies since taking care of them cannot be compared to taking care of the normal pets such as the dogs. The behaviors of the exotic animals cannot be predicted, one may not order and command their steps each minute and therefore can kill or maim within few seconds.
Substantially changing their characteristics may be a dangerous path to follow. According to Boston Matrix, ‘dogs’ should be dropped from the product range, particularly if they are not profitable. This will not be difficult for Amy as she has already dropped 22 of their most under-performing stores. The ….... is a good example of a problem child. There is lots of potential in these products but they will need lots of investment but may turn into anything in the future, including dogs.
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.
Also the way that the animals react to the stress of the experiments can severely affect the end results, rendering the experiments meaningless. Although it is true that we need animals to test our medical drugs on because if we didn’t, with modern day technology we wouldn’t be able to find cures for major diseases. But that doesn’t mean we should treat them so
In recent years, the practice of using animals for biomedical research has come under severe criticism by animal protection and animal rights groups. Laws have been passed in several countries to make the practice more ‘humane’. Debates on the ethics of animal testing have raged since the seventeenth century. Theodore Roosevelt in the nineteenth century stated, “Common sense without conscience may lead to crime, but conscience without common sense may lead to folly, which is the handmaiden of crime.” Those against, contend that the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals. Many people also believe that animals are inferior to humans and very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans.
All of which are barbaric. These helpless animals suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetics tests as well as medical training exercises. Some people believe that if these procedures were to stop, human victims of sickness and diseases would drop dead in droves, however animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. The reality is that the majority of these abhorrent tests do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal’s experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable. In fact many of the MOST important advances in health are attributable to human studies.