欢迎来到留学生英语论文网

客服信息

我们支持 澳洲论文代写 Assignment代写、加拿大论文代写 Assignment代写、新西兰论文代写 Assignment代写、美国论文代写 Assignment代写、英国论文代写 Assignment代写、及其他国家的英语文书润色修改代写方案.论文写作指导服务

唯一联系方式Q微:7878393

当前位置:首页 > 论文范文 > It Research

Man Animal Testing

发布时间:2017-04-23
该论文是我们的学员投稿,并非我们专家级的写作水平!如果你有论文作业写作指导需求请联系我们的客服人员

Just Where Do Rights Stop?

Man is considered to be the highest form of animal life. However, does this self-determined status enable Man to inflict punishment on lower orders of animals? Does the inhumanity of testing on humans by such depraved scientists as the Nazi Dr. Joseph Mengele reach out to those scientists using animals for testing everything from cosmetics to vaccines? This, of course, is one of the arguments by those who vigorously protest animal testing. As will be shown, these opponents neither understand nor feel comfortable with the basically risk-free methods of testing on non-humans to benefit humans in the long term. It will be shown that using animals for testing does not diminish species populations and provides greater benefits for maintaining health and wellness and product safety. In short, it will be shown that opponents to animal testing are well-intentioned but uninformed and hindering scientific progress. The basic question to be addressed is- what are “animal rights” and where do “rights” stop?

Let us begin with the theory that some feel that testing on animals is “inhumane” and alternative methods of testing need to be found. However, science and medicine must continue to test. In fact, sometimes, there are mandates for using animals for testing: “(An) obstacle to replacing animal testing is that many of these procedures are encouraged, if not required, by national and international law. In the United States few laws actually mandate specific types of animal testing, but some regulations…do specify animal testing” (Stevens 2006 8). Certainly animal testing is a viable alternative to testing on humans. There are those opposed to the use of animals who believe that computers could do the same result. Scientists claim this is not true. Animals, as opposed to “human” volunteers, can effectively move experimentation for new drugs along to potential success. “Because vaccines work by stimulating the body's immune system to fight back against the virus, there is no way to test in cells, or on a computer, how the vaccine will work in the whole animal. New vaccines are given to experimental animals, followed by a "challenge" with the infectious agent one wants to prevent. These animal model experiments define whether novel vaccines are safe enough to initiate clinical trials” (Corey 2004 6).

Second, some complain that animals are subjected to cruel and unusual “punishment. While this may have been true many years ago, testing today has advanced to a level of greater comfort for the animals: “Many new technologies are being developed that are making animal testing more humane and reliable. “Historically, scientists would anesthetize animals in order to provide test drugs orally and then monitor the animal's bodily functions… Now new sensors and monitors can be implanted in an animal to transmit data. Because these new sensors are less stressful for the animal, the data produced is more accurate and fewer animals are killed” (Stokstad 2004 3).

A third argument in favor of continuing the humane testing of animals is that it saves having to do the testing on humans which can have serious consequences: “6 men who participated in a clinical trial are in hospital after suffering a severe adverse reaction to the anti-inflammatory drug they took. Ok, so people who sign up for these trials do get paid and they know what they are getting themselves in to. But this type of story is really very rare. As it should be. If we weren't allowed to test drugs on rats and mice and guinea pigs before we tested them on human beings there would be loads more stories about people ending up in hospital or even dying” (Katie 2006 1). There are many who consider themselves “humane” but who are ignorant about the scientific and medical needs for animal testing. If using an animal, or a dozen animals as humanely as possible, to help find the cure for MS or cancer or AIDS or some other progressive disease like Alzheimer's, most people would get a better understanding of the necessity for using animals for testing. What must be clear, however, is that there now is a far better and literally pain-free means of much of the testing (as mentioned earlier) so those who complain solely because of the pain endured by the animals now have much of their arguments eliminated.

There is a fourth point about using animals for testing. The somewhat “far-out” statement that testing depletes or changes the species. One anti-testing and anti-dissection argument states: “Millions of animals are taken from their habitats every year for dissection, including frogs and amphibians that are candidates for endangered species status. Upsetting the ecological balance by disrupting amphibian populations can lead to a unwanted surge in insect populations” (Anon 2007 3). In a sense this is wishful thinking, or perhaps an emotional appeal to those concerned with global environment, No species is being endangered. The only thing being endangered is continued experimentation to solve some of the world's health problems.

There are many people who are truly concerned with the use of animals for testing. However, most of their information is fairly biased and does not reflect the changes still being made to improve the lot and save the lives and unnecessary pain of laboratory animals. There is a valid reason to continue to test animals:” It saves the danger of testing unknown properties and vaccines on humans. Just where do right for animal testing stop? With the calculated and humane decisions made by researchers whose goal is to save lives- human as well as animal.

Works Cited:

Corey, L. (2004): “Animal Testing is Essential for Medical Research." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale

Katie (No last name given) (2006) “A compelling argument in favour (sic) of animal testing” Inkjy Circus, March 19m, 2006

www.inkycircus.com/jargon/2006/03/a_compelling_ar.html -

Stevens, Dr. M. (2006) “An Overview of Animal Testing Issues” The Humane Society of the U.S. www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/

- Stokstad, E. (2004): Animal Testing is Becoming More Humane”At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale

No author listed: “The Case Against Classroom Dissection” About.com animalrights.about.com/od/experimentation/a/dissection.htm -

<?php include $_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'].'/includes/sections/essays/essayfooter.php'; ?>

上一篇:New communication 下一篇:Open source communities