Animal Testing Argument
Vivisection is described in the dictionary as:
The practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research (used by those opposed to such work). Vivisection literally means the 'cutting up' of living animals, but has now become more generally used as the term for all experiments on living animals (in vivo) as many animal experiments, such as toxicity tests, will not involve surgical procedures.
Vivisection is used in laboratories across the world as a 'humane' way of testing products on animals before they are sold to the public. I am strongly against this barbaric excuse of scientific research as it contradicts all that has been worked for in today's world...the right to equality, whatever the situation whether human or animal.
One argument for is that humans are more important than animals. This, I'm sorry, seems utterly absurd. To classify a race that causes wars, mass deaths and in-tolerance to other creeds as more important than animals who cause little damage to the world seems naive.
However, the fact that we, humans, have the world as it is today gives us some credit. The new life-saving technology, mass communication abilities and anti-dotes to once incurable diseases allows us to live the fast track cosmopolitan lifestyle that we lead...however, the fact that we have these luxuries has a lot to do with animal testing. How did we find these cures to fatal diseases? Yes, through testing the medicines on innocent animals.
Another argument for vivisection is that only approximately 5% of medical research is done on animals, if we look at these figures more closely we realise that 5% is a staggering figure. In 1998 in the UK a staggering 2,659,662 experiments were conducted on 2,593,587 animals. Since 1990 the number of experiments on genetically manipulated animals in Britain has risen by 827%, making this the most rapidly expanding area of animal experimentation in the UK. These horrific figures allow us to see the full extent of the suffering that animals endure each day in labs across the UK. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Another argument for vivisection is that only approximately 5% of medical research is done on animals, if we look at these figures more closely we realise that 5% is a staggering figure. In 1998 in the UK a staggering 2,659,662 experiments were conducted on 2,593,587 animals. Since 1990 the number of experiments on genetically manipulated animals in Britain has risen by 827%, making this the most rapidly expanding area of animal experimentation in the UK. These horrific figures allow us to see the full extent of the suffering that animals endure each day in labs across the UK. Also 5% of research is carried out using animals isn't strictly true. It is estimated that over 100 million animals suffer every year in laboratory experiments world-wide. However, as most countries provide only incomplete statistics it is impossible to know the exact number. Even in the UK, where annual figures are published by the Home Office, the statistics on the total number of animals used is misleading. Animals killed purely for their blood, tissue and organs; those bred for research but subsequently killed as 'surplus' and even military experiments performed by the Ministry of Defence are currently excluded from the statistics.
'It seems perverse of these animal rights activists to pick first on science, the most morally justifiable reason for the destruction of animals.' (Quote taken from The Guardian newspaper published 8/12/1998)
Science...moral? Two words that don't seem to fit in the same sentence. Science is to blame for most of the world's fear and suffering. A bomb, nuclear missiles, gases are all the splendid work of our friend science. Science is used today as nothing more than a beauty parlour for the superficial individuals who spend lavishly on cosmetics and luxuries not flinching an eyelid at the suffering that was endured for that pot of makeup.
Another question raised for vivisection is Isn't it true that every major medical advance in the last century was a result of animal experimentation? Surprise, surprise the answer is...NO. Since the inception of the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1901, two thirds of the prizes have been awarded to scientists using various 'alternative' technologies, not animal experiments. In fact, results derived from animal experiments have had a very minimal effect on the dramatic rise in life expectancy in the 20th century. According to the Centres for Disease Control (CDC), the rise in life expectancy can be attributed mainly to changes in lifestyle, environmental factors, and improvements in sanitation and not the barbaric, horrific murder of innocent animals brought into this world as products of science and sold off to the 'scientists' who conduct 'moral' experiments on these poor creatures.
One of the more popular arguments for vivisection is, 'Would you rather see your child die than support experiments on animals?' Fortunately, no one will ever have to make this decision. Since vivisection often offers such misleading predictions, the real choice is not between animals and children, but between good and bad science. Vivisection has undoubtedly cost many children their lives. It produces inaccurate and dangerous results and wastes enormous amounts of precious time and resources on an archaic methodology while promising new techniques are ignored.
If we are to truly help our children, we must take a broad look at the factors contributing to their suffering and the means we may employ to prevent it. We must not be influenced by those with financial interests in animal research and allow them to convince us that their outdated, inaccurate methods will save the lives of our children.
'Animals are anesthetised' - another inaccurate piece of information. Thousands of new drugs, chemicals, and other household products are introduced on the market each year. Most of these, from shampoos to weed killers, are tested on animals. Many of these tests are conducted without anaesthesia, to minimize variable factors, but seem to ignore an even more significant variable, species differences.
In conclusion I feel that vivisection is the mindless torture of poor animals. Animals that are no less susceptible to pain than your average house pet. Vivisection has become firmly entrenched in the mindset of the scientific community in the western world. It is not difficult for vivisections to produce results, since the system is so well established. Variables are easily changed to produce volumes of data. In the publish-or-perish world of science, vivisection offers limitless opportunities for publication. Animal-based research is the science of the past. There are a number of alternatives available to modern researchers which are less expensive, more reliable and ethically sound. Studies performed in the test-tube (in vitro) have many advantages over animal experiments. They provide results rapidly; experimental parameters are easily controlled; and their focus on the cellular and molecular levels of the life process provides more useful information about how chemicals and drugs work or cause damage.
Clinical and epidemiological studies are a vast source of data. They have provided us with more useful information about the nature of disease in our world than any other source. Modern computer technology has vastly improved our ability to analyze the huge volume of incredibly complex data available to us by studying the course of disease throughout the world. Cell and tissue cultures, CAT, PET, and MRI scans, quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis in drug design, and chemical toxicity assays are some of the modern approaches to research available to scientists today. We must ask ourselves why we rely on the science of yesterday.
Daniel Black English Coursework