This research paper discusses the opposition side of my chosen topic “Should the animals be used for scientific research”. It will evidently elucidate why it is malicious for the animals to be used as scientific research. Animals cannot be compared to humans when it comes to finding out what product or drug is competent for human to use, because animals and humans have different hormones. It is also been proven with the drug thalidomide, that even though it has been tested on thousands of animals it was not a good alternative for human choose.
Should the animals be used for scientific research?
According to American Anti-Vivisection Society 100 million animals are used every year in the United States as models in biological and medical research to study human disease, injury, development, psychology, and anatomy and physiology (AAVS, 2010). Animals undergo tremendous cruelty in these studies. Animals should not have to tolerate unnecessary pain and torture that they can avoid. Even though it has always been known that the animals are what scientists and researchers use to test new products that we use, they should find a better alternative to test products. First of all animals and humans are very different so the results that the tests have on the animals are usually different that those of a human. An FDA drug assessment states, “Over half of all new medications the FDA approved in a decade were recalled or relabeled because of side effects not observed in animal experiments. Only nine percent of products that are tested on animals actually make it to the market. Plus $12 billion are spent every year on animal testing, which should be given to a better cause. In my opinion animals have the right to live as much as humans do. Plus it is illegal for people to abuse animals so why isn’t it yet illegal for scientists to use animals for testing that will result in harming the animal or death? Statistics show that fifty percent of these animals to die two to three weeks later. Animals are forced to drink the product, have it put into their eye, or are forced to inhale it with drug masks. They don’t have any pain killers, so they feel all of the pain. Ninety four percent of animals involved in animal testing are used to test cosmetics or household cleaning products, this leaves only six percent for medical research.
Some scientific research is beneficial to the animal, for instance teaching a rat to run through a maze in order to see how quickly the rat learns. On the other hand, using the animals to test drugs and cosmetics are cruelty. Everything from perfume to soap is tested on the animal to see if it will be harmful in any way to humans. This test is done by pouring some kind of chemical or substance onto the animal's skin to see if it irritates it. It is also put into the animal's eyes to see if it does any harmful damage and poured down the animal's throat to see if it is poisonous.
According to the US Food and Drug Administration, 92 percent of drugs that show promise in animals fail in clinical trials, making the continued use of animals unjustifiable not only on an ethical scale, but on a scientific one as well (Lynn, 2010). I’m in opposition to this on both moral and scientific ground. Morally, it is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary, for example, I once saw an undercover footage on youtube.com from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weed killer which had already been tested on humans. The dogs were given what has being established as a dangerous dose for humans. What good reasons could they have had for this cruelty towards the dogs? It was obvious that the scientists involved were either seriously lacking in training or were just plain idiots, because one of them accidentally inserted the tube delivering the weed killer into the dog’s trachea rather than its oesophagus, filling the dog’s lungs with fluid. I’m neither a researcher nor a scientist and it doesn’t...
References: Animal research. (2010, August 2). Retrieved from http://www.aavs.org/research
Lynn, W E. (2010, June 4). Keratan akhbar online. Retrieved from http://www.nre.gov.my/Kenyataa
Bantwal, N. (2010, May 3). Argument agaists animal testing. Retrieved from http://buzzle.com/articles/argument-animal-testing.html
NAVS, Initials. (2004, March 18). The national anti-vivisection society. Retrieved from http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename
Richards, R. (2010, May 19). Debate over animal testing. Retrieved from http://www.suite101.com/content/animal-testing-pros-and-cons---debate-over-animal-research
Please join StudyMode to read the full document