Animal testing essay
Free essay example:
Animal research, or animal testing, is the use of animals in scientific researches to develop drugs for the life-taking diseases that human beings contract. It has been practiced for hundreds of years. Animal testing helps producing many vaccines and other drugs, like penicillin, and thus, save many human lives. On the other hand, animal testing also causes pain and kills a lot of animals used during the researches that many people oppose this practice. Supporters show their support, while opponents show their oppositions toward this controversial issue that is still in debates today. Now, before I write this essay, I am a opponent of animal testing because it takes away the life of the animals and it hurts them. I think we should think of solutions like tissues to test on. I just don't think it is fair to say "let's just take an animal to test on" because to me animals matter as much as (or even more..) humans. In this essay I will first show the pro's and after these will follow the con's of animal testing. After I have done this I will again give my opinion on the subject.
The first argument against animal testing is that; In a laboratory for animals, all sorts of animals, such as cats, rats, dogs, mice and chimpanzees, can be found. The animals are locked in small cages individually, kept away from the natural world of where they should have belonged. In addition, they may be connected to wires or may look aberrant because they are infected with "human diseases." Animals need to be in their own environment and it is very cruel to test on them.
Secondly, chemical testing on animals is poisoning them. Their bloodstream is tainted with massive doses of various chemicals in order to see what the results will be. Most of the time, these doses of chemicals overwhelm the animal, causing it to die a painful and stressful death.
Third, the fact that the results attained from experiments on animal testing do not accurately portray their influence on humans is considered to be a one of the serious argument against the testing on animals. Humans are quite different from other animals, so the consequences of animal testing may not applicable to humans. They argue that they way one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular way does not necessarily entail other species will react in the same way. The Italian Professor Peitro Croce has been fighting against animal testing for several years. The arguments he puts forth includes misleading results of animal tests while they are applied to humans. Parsley is considered to be a deadly poison for parrots yet we use it to flavor our food. Arsenic, a poison for humans but it is not harmful to sheep. Sheep, goats, horses and mice can also eat hemlock in large numbers while this is toxic to humans. This proves humans react quite different than other animals, so testing on animals doesn't really work.
The Medical Research Modernization Committee, an American organization for doctors who are against animal testing, argue that AIDS research in America has been very unproductive. Animals being infected with HIV were not successful in developing symptoms quite similar to those humans develop when they have AIDS. Over a decade more than 100 chimpanzees have been infected with HIV. But only two have become ill. The same description continues to prescribe that AIDS may have been caused by vivisection, with monkey viruses being mutated to form HIV whist generating a polio vaccine from baboon tissue.
It is definitely true that 15 laboratory workers in the US have been killed by the Marburg virus and other monkey viruses, and that there have been two outbreaks of Ebola in the US labs where they test them. Critics continue to argue that animal kept in unnatural conditions, or animals in pain or stress, are not giving rise to accurate or consistent results anyway. Stringent regulations have not eliminated researchers from abusing animals even though such instances are rare. As a result those against animal testing argue that animal testing should be banned immediately.
Although there are many arguments against animal testing, there are also a few arguments in favor of animal testing.
We do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing.
A further point often raised against animal testing is that it is cruel. Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the great majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? Furthermore, animals clearly do not feel the same way as humans, and scientists are careful to minimize stress in the animals, since this would damage their research.
It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits.
It is true that the results are not always applicable to humans. Some drugs have had to be withdrawn, despite testing. However, we simply do not have alternative methods of testing. Computer models are not advanced enough, and testing on plants is much less applicable to humans than tests on animals such as monkeys. Until we have a better system, we must use animal testing.
Before I started this essay I was already against animal testing. I think that animal testing is cruel because animals have rights too. I still think this The fact that they should 'feel things (like pain etc) different than humans' is bullshit. They can feel pain too, and pain is pain so I think they DON'T deserve this. What did they do wrong? Animals are innocent so they just don't deserve being treated like this. Besides this testing on them doesn't even work all the times; animals don't react on the drugs in the same way as humans do so the tests don't approve anything. Also less than 2% of human illnesses are ever seen in animals, so if you want to make medicines against a disease you'll first have to make the animal ill in order to test things on it and get them better again? It's useful to know that 95% of the drugs passed by animal tests are dangerous to humans, so I really can't think of any reason to have experiments on animals. I understand people are in favor of it when it can save humans (although I am not so sure of this), but I think cosmetics should surely not be tested on animals because these is not life-saving and as important as medicines. There are many alternatives which could be used to test on, like human tissues or cells, so why shouldn't we use them?
God shaped all the living things on this planet; The humans, the plants and also the animals. By chance humans have become the masters of our world. However I think this doesn't give them the right to kill and destroy. Sanne van Emden, H4D
- http://www.peta.org Peta, animal organization.
- http://www.mrmcmed.org MRMC, organization against animal experimentation.
- http://www.animalconcerns.org Animal Concerns, organization
- http://altweb.jhsph.edu/faqs.htm Site with much information about animal testing.
- http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf Pdf folder about animal experimentation.
I watched a few movies on www.youtube.com but I didn't get any usefull info from them.
This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Living Things in their Environment section.
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Response to the question
In this essay, the candidate argues against using animals for testing, he/she offers both the pros and cons, before explaining why he/she is against it. The content of the essay is all relevant to the question scientifically, with the structure ...Read full review
Response to the question
In this essay, the candidate argues against using animals for testing, he/she offers both the pros and cons, before explaining why he/she is against it. The content of the essay is all relevant to the question scientifically, with the structure being in a very easy-to-follow and logical order. The introduction works well, but perhaps, it is better not to reveal the final conclusion until after the points have been made.
Level of analysis
The candidate shows their understanding of the subject by choosing relevant points to make and the level of analysis is sufficient. The main area for improvement is that there needs to be a better balance of pros and cons. most of the way through the scientific points, it is suggested that animal testing is evil, but there is a little inconsistency as he/she writes 'until we have a better system, we must use animal testing'. A more effective method would be to introduce counterpoints to each of the pros of using animal testing, which would show a strong understanding of both sides of the argument and make their point-of-view more convincing. It is also probably better to have the pros first and the cons second as it will lead into the conclusion better and the cons will stick in the reader's memory more.
Quality of writing
As previously mentioned, the structure of the essay works well; each paragraph makes a seperate point which together contributes to the argument. Furthermore, the language used is specific to the area covered with technical terms being used when necessary. This shows the student has a good understanding of the subject. A sources used is a good addition and shows high-level thinking; remember, it is always important to cite where any statistics come from to show their reliability.
Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn
Reviewed by lookitspete 29/02/2012Read less
- Join over 1.2 million students every month
- Accelerate your learning by 29%
- Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month