Animal testing essay?

Animal Testing: Myth vs. Reality


It was an average day at the Lovelace Foundation (a foundation formed to foster health services), in Albuquerque when it happened. The sun was shining, the birds were singing, and life was good for everyone; everyone except for the 64 beagles who were forced to inhale radioactive Strontium 90 (an element connected to the development of the atom bomb) as part of a Larger Fission Product Inhalation Program. Twenty-five of the dogs eventually died soon after the experiment. One dog died from a brain hemorrhage, another from an epileptic seizure. Before dying, the other dogs lost their appetites, became feverish, and suffered from hemorrhages (Free Essays).


Animal testing is a cruel and inhumane thing to do and should be abolished. According to research done by Wilkipedia, an estimated 50-100 million animals are used and killed annually for purportedly scientific purposes. The main reasons of why animal testing should be terminated are because animals are not humans and the testing of animals is torturous. Although some people may believe that animal testing is a positive method of research and experimentation, they fail to acknowledge that the lives of living creatures are destroyed during the process. Alternative methods should be used instead.








Shechtman 2


Some people argue that animal testing can save human lives; however, the reality is that animals are not humans. Animals such as chimpanzees have many similar features to that of a human, but not every characteristic about them is quite so human. For example, in an attempt to find a cure for Parkinson’s disease, chimps were given a drug that caused brain damage. After given this drug they were given another drug to see if it would have a positive effect, and even though the effect did turn out to be positive, the drug did not help with the disease in humans. Also, a lot of drugs have risky side-effects that wouldn’t be predictable by animal testing models, such as Thalidomide (a hypnotic drug that was taken off of the market when it was found that it caused severe birth defects) (Wikipedia.org).


Another fine example of how animal testing could be very misleading is Aspirin. When taken by humans, aspirin can prevent strokes and do many more life-saving tasks, but when taken by animals, it too can cause birth defects and not have any positive value. Ray Greek (author of Sacred Cows and Golden Geese) says in his book, “Ushering drugs to market through animal testing is treacherous. Legal drugs kill more people per year than all illegal drugs combined." Clearly, the inaccuracy of animal testing (due to the fact that the animals do not have all of the same characteristics of human beings) is very risky and dangerous (“Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic”) (“Animal Testing 101”).


Additionally, animal testing is a torturous method of research to inflict on a living creature. Despite the fact that a large amount of animal testing cannot be relied on, or applied towards humans, millions of animals every year are forced to swallow and inhale very hazardous substances. Of all the testing options available, the Acute Toxicity testing


Shechtman 3


method is the most common. To perform this type of test, a person must force a certain amount of animals to eat a substance until 50% of them die. The PETA organization recently conducted a survey, and found out that these tests only had the ability to predict toxicity in humans with an accuracy of 65%. Obviously, although these tests have some accuracy they still are not reliable enough to risk human lives over (“Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic”).


To demonstrate just how torturous animal testing can be, it was found that at Europe’s largest facility for animal testing, puppies were screamed at, punched, and more, just to get a blood sample. On the website of the BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) you can observe an undercover investigation in which monkeys are taken from their mothers, forced to dance for the entertainment of the employees, tested, killed, and then thrown into a garbage can (Wikipedia.org).


At the University of California in 1985 a baby monkey was separated from his mother just before his eyelids were sewn shut for the purpose of a sleep deprivation experiment. Scientists who later reviewed the petrifying experiment revealed how it was in fact a useless experiment from the start. It is poor human judgment like this that makes animal testing that much more controversial. Britches (the name of the monkey) never regained the ability to see again, and was sent away in a steel cage to live the rest of his life alone before the experimenters would soon kill him (Wikipedia.org).


It is understood that the testing of animals helps to create cures and treatments for diseases which can save human lives, but there are other methods of testing that don’t involve the murdering of helpless creatures. There is no law that requires non-


Shechtman 4


pharmaceutical products to be tested with animals, and therefore they should not be employed. For the time being, it is okay to use the animals for the research of cancer (and other deadly diseases), but it is not okay to use them for things such as cosmetics and beauty. (“Animal Testing Alternatives”)


An abundance of alternatives for animal testing are available as well, and can be more cost-effective and efficient using today’s modern technology. According to an article written on www.Allforanimals.com, “The two main reasons why companies don’t use these methods are: the fear for human safety and the fear of product liability suits.”


Some alternatives to animal testing include gels that measure eye irritancy through a protein alteration system. Eytex, Skintex, and EpiPack, are just a few of these gels (“Animal Testing Alternatives”).


Given these facts, one can clearly see how millions of God’s creatures are being killed every year from animal testing. Organizations and people who oppose animal testing will continue to fight for the freedom of the animals, but in the mean time, we can all do our part by making sure that the products being purchased aren’t developed with the abuse of animals. In 1966 the Animal Welfare Act was initiated and required that all animals receive proper veterinary care, food, and many other conveniences. According to William Russell, the treatment of animals can be improved drastically by using the three R’s (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement). As far as one of the main purposes of animal testing, cosmetics are sold all over the world; they attract many buyers with the new products that come out every week. How does one buy these products when they know that an animal had to be killed in order to produce it? Buyers all over the world


Shechtman 5





need to realize how much harm they are causing and need to take a step back and think about those 64 beagles that had a chance to live happy lives (Animal Land).

Animal testing essay?
Your teacher may not like you using Wikipedia. There are better sources at the bottom of the page. Those should be checked out, because Wikipedia may be accurate, but teachers do not like it because it can be edited by anyone. If you would like a movie on animal testing and P.E.T.A, check out this video on Google. It is called Penn %26amp; Teller: B.S. It has a ew swears in it, so if you are okay with that, check out this link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...





i highly reccomend watching anything by them, simply because they are like society's Mythbusters.
Reply:Any interesting essay but to get good marks you should endeavor to give equal space to both sides of the discussion, otherwise you appear partisan. You should read "Lives in the Balance" by Smith and Boyd, The report of a working party of the institute of Medical Ethics. Oxford University Press (1991).


Regarding deaths due prescription to drugs, to put this in perspective how many people would have died without the drugs?


Wikipedia is a great resource for easy access to info, but you run the risk of being regarded as superficial unless you support the conclusions with direct links to the actual hard data. Unsupported conclusions may be marked down.