Analysis Of The Perspectives In Support For Animal Testing And Against It

People are now debating the ethics of using animals for research. Animals are used for research since ancient times. Ancient Greek doctors used animal dissections for anatomical experiments, because human use was taboo. The use of animals in experimentation increased with advancements in medicine, particularly during the 19th-20th century. Animal experimentation has been a controversial topic for many years. CAAT and PETA, among others, were created to defend the rights of animals. Pro-Test and the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Research Defense Society, on the other hand, have formed organizations to support animal experimentation. This essay will examine both sides of the argument.

Let’s start with the viewpoint that supports using animals for research. Obaro Avuarherhe published an article in The Guardian titled, “Animal researchers can justify their research – but a lack of cuteness is not relevant.” It is important to note that the article was published in a reputable British paper. This will give you a good idea of its credibility. The writer holds a PhD degree in Neuroscience and is a highly educated person.

He begins with an example showing how, even though he was an expert in his field, he still lost a discussion to an activist for animal rights. The debate was lost once the facts were revealed. He goes on to explain that, despite their genuine concern for animals, animal researchers will eventually have to make a choice between humans and other creatures. I find his opening paragraph quite captivating. His direct style is what grabs the attention of readers. The fact that he admitted that he won the debate shows how he accepts and doesn’t fear defeat.

Any hypothetical question such “Which life is more valuable, that of a child or one of mice” is extremely arrogant. He then quotes Gandhi as a way to show that some of history’s most influential thinkers believed that all conscious animals are sacred. It is important that the writer quotes Gandhi because it is a well-known person with a solid reputation.

It is important to not take the philosophical debate about the sacredness and value of all living beings lightly. He uses the example of people who prefer the taste of a delicious lamb to its cuteness, and then makes a sarcastic statement. The writer continues to criticize the article in daily mail that was published regarding kittens. She calls it ‘ignorant, irresponsible and childish’. The writer seems to be irresponsible in calling out a renowned newspaper. The writer should have chosen a subtler approach rather than a confrontational one. The reader will not be impressed by openly criticizing another person.

The writer degrades his article by noting that the images were taken in Wisconsin. It may be helpful to provide details about the experiments, but it is not relevant to the writer’s argument. Many Russell group universities haven’t conducted research for years. However, a Cambridge University spokesperson says the research was done on a limited number of cats to discover a new treatment. He also ignores the Daily Mail article, stating that universities conducting the research will need Home Office approval. Although I find it wrong that the paragraph criticizes this article, the writer has a valid argument. He gives Russell Group Universities as examples which instantly established credibility to his research.

Sarcastically, the writer claims that nothing he said was relevant and that what matters most is that the experiment involved kittens. This is because they are cute. Once again, I believe that the use sarcasm makes the writer’s argument look weaker.

Animals are used in many research projects, including heart transplants and blood transfusions. Animals have been used in many ways. The writer presents a very fair perspective on how animal research benefits us. It is not something that many would dispute. I think the main debate is about whether we should use animals for research. In the paragraph that follows, it is admirable of the writer to provide a well-balanced conclusion. Three points are made by the writer. First, substitute animals with alternatives wherever they are available. Second, reduce the animal population. Finalize, refine the experiment to reduce the pain.

The writer makes a point that we should not let emotion overtake us when confronting the issue of animal testing. We must be open-minded and objective. He presents his own opinion, so not everyone has to agree.

The author concluded his article by stating that anesthesia is not different for humans and animals. If we want to rely on the expertise of experts who spend their lives studying the biology of mammals, we have to trust them to offer us the treatments we require. Those who are able to answer these questions easily must face the ethical dilemmas this topic brings. Since the rest of the world is still thinking about this question, we should give them a big hat off. The writer makes a strong argument by comparing the fact that animals are also subjected to many of the same procedures as humans.

Another article in the Telegraph asks “Should We Experiment on Animals?” Colin Blakemore, British neurobiologist and author of “Yes”, wrote the article. He has published a few books and won several awards for the contribution he made to science. He is also an Oxford professor. His credentials show that he has a lot of knowledge.

The writer’s opinions are similar to Evuarherhe. He asks in his article what anti-biotics are, and how about organ transplants? He answers that all of them were developed through animal testing. He says that animal testing should be avoided whenever possible.

He says that animals and humans, like mice and rats, react similarly to illnesses. This is a further antithesis to one of the most common arguments against using animals for research, which is that many times the response to drugs is not the same.

He quotes facts like animal research contributing to 70% of Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology, but he fails to back it up. He uses Daniel James’ tragic suicide as an example to reinforce his argument. Daniel James was paralyzed after trying to stop UK research which used rats. He says those who are against animal testing have the right to refuse treatment. I think he’s being logical. If animals are not to be used in research then you can refuse treatment for diseases if animals have been used. The author concludes his article with the statement that since many diseases remain incurable, we must continue to use animals in order to test and find cures. The article, in my opinion, is biased. It can also be aggressive. He doesn’t completely fail, as his arguments are logical and reasonable.

Now, let’s look at the other viewpoint: that it is wrong for animals to be used in research. New York Times “Saving Animals: New Ways to Test Products” by Barnaby Feder is the article we will analyze. This newspaper is well-known. The writer of the New York Times has written many articles and is a well-seasoned writer.

He begins his article by noting that skin, eyes and other body parts of humans are grown in test tubes. The writer begins by stating that human skin, eyes etc. The author continues to describe other alternative methods of animal testing such as simulation software. These alternatives show what happens when a scientist challenges the pressure to change. The writer then quotes Alan M. Goldberg who is a toxicology professsor, saying that it was disappointing to see the slow development. Citing an expert person establishes credibility.

Estimations suggest that millions of animal research subjects are killed annually. The companies may have to deal with a lot of questions from animal rights activists. The article doesn’t specify the source of the estimates, making it hard for readers to know whether to believe the writer.

Cost and reliability are the main reasons why companies have shifted away from animal tests. Industry executives report that about 25 percent drugs fail to demonstrate side effects in animal testing and are then discontinued. For this reason, companies test their products on a wide range of animals. Animal testing has become a controversial topic. Again, the article does not provide evidence to support its claim.

In 2005, the total number of lab animal sacrifices was 1,18 million. This is a 50% decrease from 1970. It is difficult to determine the total and the government statistics exclude many animals. The writer quotes Martin Stephens who is the vice president of Animal Research Issues at the Humane Society of the US. He agrees with the author that the numbers have increased or decreased. The article quotes Mr. Martin, and also provides statistics from USDA.

It takes years to convince the testers of the superiority of the alternative to animal testing. David B. Warheit is a DuPont scientist who shared his experience in testing nanoscale materials. He discovered different results from testing human cells versus rats. It was from this that he concluded that rat testing with live animals produced better results. The article is a good example of a point-of-view that differs from the thesis. It does not seem sarcastic, or disrespectful to Mr. David.

Human cells are gaining popularity in in-vitro experiments. The writer continues by naming other startups that use human cells. Human cells are used for testing in Vitro labs because they are more efficient and cost-effective. Charles River Laboratories has a division called Endosafe. They have developed an alternative to testing solution on rabbit’s eyes. The test has proven to be cheaper and is now used in dialysis facilities. Entelos uses computer simulations in drug testing. It is a good idea for the writer to provide two examples to back up his argument.

Alternatives are used by many large companies to enhance their image. In the last 20 years, companies such as Procter and Gamble have invested millions in developing alternative products. European regulators set 2009 as the deadline for cosmetics testing using animals. Regulators put pressure on industries, and this is why they are 10 years ahead of the US government in developing alternatives. The conclusion is that animal testing should be reduced or eliminated.

Another article in The Independent titled “How reliable are animal tests? C Ray Greek is an American board-certified nephrologist. He wrote “Podium”, a piece by C Ray Greek. The Independent, a long-established newspaper, is another option.

Medicines like anti biotics, vaccines etc. Our lives have been impacted in a positive way. They are however tested on animals before they can be sold. Tests on humans are performed afterward to confirm the results. Humans who are extremely sick may be given new medications without any prior testing if they volunteer. I’m not aware that such trials on humans are being conducted. In this instance, the article would have been better served by giving examples.

The article cites a Thalidomide medication as an example, and states that despite extensive testing on animals it was harmful to humans. The writer concludes that animal testing does not predict and has little value because not all species have the same outcomes. I find it very immature for the writer to make such a statement based only on one instance. He did not mention the hundreds of drugs that have had positive results in animal testing.

Before writing this paper, I completely agreed that animal testing was necessary. I did not know about alternative methods. The thesis argues that we shouldn’t let emotions influence our opinions about animal testing, and there are no alternatives. In the antithesis there are many examples that show alternatives to animal testing and they question the reliability. Mr. Evuarherhe and I both agree that alternatives should be used when available. We must decide whether we want to save humans or animals and use the least amount of emotions.