Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Daniel Park English 1010 Kelly turnbeaugh November 19, 2013 Animal Testing, A good choice?

I am going to have a discussion with you about the question posed in the title. Do animal testing benefits outweigh the consequences? This is a question that is debated by millions and millions of people on a daily basis. There are in fact entire organizations dedicated to this subject on both sides of the issue. One of these well-known organizations is known as PETA. Some of the materials that will be discussed in this paper are different types of animal testing such as physical, genetic and mental testing. Although the other two are important the greatest debated one would have to be the physical aspect of the testing. The most obvious issues would be animal abuse and cruelty. I am going to discuss all of these topics thou hourly throughout the essay. The question you must ask yourself at the end of this essay is do you think it is more beneficial or that the consequences arent worth it . This topic is significant because there are many false ideologies based on this subject. For example there are a few different perspectives people that have a personal connection to both sides and then the outsiders to both sides so at least 4 perspectives this tends to create a lot of controversy that I would like to see if I can clear up. Hopefully I am able to help you understand all aspects of the issue to allow you to choose a well-educated and thought position. The subject of animal

testing is a delicate subject that I believe must be discussed with extreme caution so hopefully I am going to show enough rhetoric to you guys. The first aspect I am going to discuss is the physical aspect of animal testing the first thing that I would like to put to rest are all of the false assumptions that the majority of the public have. Animal testing does not mean animal abuse actually it is quite contrary only six percent of the animals that are experimented on actually experience pain and these are tests that cannot be done any other way. For example next time you get hurt and need pain medication you can thank the animals that the medication was tested on. You cant really tell if something relieves pain unless the recipient is in pain and very few humans are willing to go through pain. However, one such example is the wisdom tooth test now this is still tested on animals before going to humans but the test is reduced quite significantly. In addition to the pain aspect there are people that just dont like the fact that anything is being done to the rabbits, monkeys, and those types of animals. I wonder what these people would think if they knew that ninety percent of these animals researched on are rodents such as mice or rats now I realize they may still have feelings but I know very few people that care as much about them as they do their makeups and medications. Another side of this is the more genetically side of things. The European Commission propose to asses 30,000 chemicals within a timeframe of 15 years some of the ways that this will be done is through tailored testing that involves very controlled tests that will monito r the different types of toxicities that these chemicals have one of these include the effects on

reproductive systems where they the impact on the entire group of animals bread for testing will be evaluated. I would have to say that for the most part I have to agree with most of these sources. I agree with the fact that animal testing should not be looked at as only positive or only negative. I believe that this is one of those delegated issues where some things are ok while others are not. I agree that it should still be done because of all of the medical advancements that have come from it. I found it really surprising that only six percent of animals tested on actually experience pain. The other thing I found fairly interesting was that ninety percent of the animals that are tested on are rodents. In my opinion animal testing should be allowed and practiced because the benefits outweigh the consequences. My reasoning for this would have to be that so many peoples lives have been saved by animal testing. There are many sub-reasons for this as well such as the fact that there actually are laws that prevent people from doing anything considered cruel to the animals. Keep in mind that animal cruelty is very different from animal testing which many people dont understand. Another reason is the fact that now they are finding different ways to make it so the animals dont really have to go through much. For example the animals that are tested on are for the most part required to be given pain killers. Now many people may say how could you do those things to innocent animals. I would have to ask them if they really care about rodents that much. Additionally, they might say just let humans do the experiments. However, this would cause many issues considering some of the tests they do. Would any

human let someone see how toxic a chemical was on them? Of course not. So this brings up the issue do we just not want to have any of the luxuries that we have to this day? I think Veronique for the word press had some really valuable information on this subject. One of the most critical things is how there is an automatic assumption with the majority of people that animal testing means animal experimenting and therefore animal abuse. However one interesting point of view is just how we look at cattle, chickens or any animals used for food. Like animals for food the animals for testing are bred for that purpose just like the ones in the food industry. Another, key Idea is that not all experimenting is done on animals in fact some of the ways they are reducing this is asking for humans or even going as far as to use insects to do the experimenting. Now if someone cares if a beetle or a fly gets hurt I would have to ask them the think of the last time they killed one. Chances are that it was pretty recent. Additionally, there are laws in place to control animal testing. Clearly this author knows what she is talking about all of her credible sources has enabled her to provide accurate information on the topic. The purpose of this article is to educate people on the true reality of animal testing. People could interpret it in a few different ways but I feel she is trying to show that even though things are being done to the animals its not anything that is really cruel because they are either required to be sedated or given pain medication. This is important because it clears up many of the issues of false understandings. Roberta Goli had an interesting perspective on the matter where there is not just a black and white issue that many people think it is. Additionally, she talks about how there are many ethics organizations that monitor the treatment of the animals. There is even an organization

in Australia that defines animals as fish, amphibian, bird, reptile, crustacean, or mammal apart from humans. They also have a code for testing that applies to teachers, professors, scientists, the aec, institutions, and anyone involved in the care of animals such as veterinary institutions, pounds, and animal farms. Additionally any animals that are used for scientific institutions such as universities, laboratories and other medical institutions. In my opinion this information is really critical because again it shows people that the experimenting isnt just a free for all and that there are organizations set up to say who can do the experimenting which means that there is a monitoring system set up to where they need to be a certified organization to do the experimenting. The purposes of the organizations are that they are to keep these people in line and following the laws associated with the testing. People could interpret this as a step toward making it better for the animals or they could interpret it as providing passageways for organizations to do things to animals that could be considered inhumane. This is important because it shows that they are at least trying. Kanade Shirvinas had some really interesting views on the subject to the alternatives. For example she talked about how animals are used in researcher when they are indispensable and nothing else can be used. One of these kinds of things is for the testing of certain diseases. In this kind of scenario there is not much else we can because we cant really take volunteers to give a painful incurable disease so that we can see if we can cure it with an experimental drug. This is where testing involving rodents comes in. In addition to this she showed how some countries are completely getting rid of animal testing so that we use alternatives. For example the UK has completely banned cosmetic testing in 1990. Another thing that was interesting was that only half of a percent of the research animals in the world are non-human primates.

People need to look at this and realize that the people that are doing the experimenting are not savages they are people that are trying to save your family member that has cancer or a disease that is yet incurable. Thomas Hofer and his associates had a very intriguing side to the issue where they talked about the reforms in animal testing where they are trying to fix many of the issues where companies have found loopholes and go to many of the organizations and see if they are doing what they are supposed to. The type of experimenting they are talking about is chemical testing where the EU has failed to cover the evaluation of existing chemicals that are being used to experiment on animals. However they are going to evaluate some 30,000 chemicals within the next 15 years to see if they should be allowed to be used on animals. In addition to this they are putting into place a kind of tailor-made testing strategy to make sure that the testing is legal. I think that the main reason for the testing reform would have to be from the increased pressure put on them by organizations such as peta and other animal rights activist groups. WMS Russel and RL Burch from John Hopkins University published an article that shows that not all animal testing is doing anything to the animals and actually many of them are mental tests such as the social behavior of the commoner experimental animals and how they act. These kinds of studies to nothing to physically harm the animals they are just to see what they do when placed into certain scenarios. Another type of this is where they studied the social rank order in a caged group or rats and the conditions under which a social system is established. They also talked a little about the perfection of the sensitive toxicity test that is performed on mice under general Anastasia this is where they see how toxic something is to an

animal but as bad as that sounds the animals are still under anesthetics so they cannot feel anything. I would like to close this paper by posing the question I asked at the beginning of the paper is animal testing a good choice. This is something you will have to decide for yourself. I have provided adequate information for you to make an educated decision but if you wish to really have a solid ground on a position then I encourage you to study the topic yourself as I have only touched the tip of the iceberg on the subject of animal testing. I hope this information has cleared up many of the speculations surrounding animal testing. I hope it has shown you that animal testing is far different from animal abuse and that some things that are done to animals are done in order to make it so that the next time your family member is deathly ill they can be saved by medications that have been proven safe in animals.

Works cited Nov 2013. Veronique, "Word presses. The Twenty Ten Theme, 22 5 2011. Web. 11 Goli, Roberta. "Suite101.. Suite, 04 11 2013. Web. 11 Nov 2013. Hofer, Thomas, Ingred Gerner, and Ursula Remy . Animal testing and alternative approaches for the human health risk assessment under the proposed new European chemicals regulation. Edition 10. Unknow: Springer-Verlag, 2004. 549-564. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. Russel, WMS, and RL Burch . The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Unknown. Baltimore: John Hopkins University, 2013. All. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. Miller, Joanna. "GOP Activist Faces Dilemma on Animal Tests." L.A. Times [Los Angelos] 12 11 1989, n. pag. Web. 18 Nov. 2013 Guierrini, Anita. Experimenting with humans and animals. Baltimoore: John Hopkins University, 2003. eBook.