Scientific testing on animals pros and cons. Pros and Cons to animal research! Flashcards 2019-01-10
Scientific testing on animals pros and cons Rating:
4,8/10
670
reviews
New georgiajudges.org Website: Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?
This is the reason of the American Veterinary Medical Association to endorse this practice. However, on a personal note, yes, it is absolutely inhuman to consider animals worthless objects that have no purpose but to serve as the means to an end that will benefit only the human race. The biggest problems are the ethical ones, which need to be individually addressed rather than animal testing as a whole. Testing humans with invasive experiments could result in death. On moral grounds, it is not at all right to mistreat animals for our selfish gains.
It has led to several medical advancements for humans. Animals results cannot be reliable to the fullest: Though animal physiology is similar to humans, not all the studies can be extrapolated to humans. In cosmetics testing, animals would endure inhumane treatment, where they are being restrained. The animals like rats, mice may even bite the handler. As a result of this debate have emerged several pros and cons of the practice of experimenting on animals, which will give you a clear picture about the effects of this practice. Although there will always be a risk when testing new items, even after animal research has provided positive data, the risks to a human without animal research would be incredibly high.
There are three groups of people formed due to this scientific research using animals. List of Pros of Animal Experimentation 1. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. And because vivisections within laboratory walls are regulated by the committee that the facility itself selected, animal subjects are even more at risk of being treated like prisoners in a hospital for their entire existence. In some cases, animals are forced to eat excessively, are forced medication, or are forced to do or consume other things. Just because animals can't speak, it is not morally correct to subject them to such treatments. Department of Agriculture reported that nearly 100,000 animals suffered pain during experiments while not being administered any anesthesia.
Whenever there are potential treatments or cures that animals' bodies would reject, there is a great chance that these cures may be eliminated due to the differences of animal's reaction with those of humans when a particular drug is used. There are extremely strict laws in place for the treatment of animals that are in research labs and testing facilities. Proponents claim that most medical breakthroughs in the last century were direct results of animal experimentation. Any long-term research involves mice and rats because of this unique aspect to the research. Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us. Hence testing medications on animals may not give a direct correlation of activity in humans who are free to live as they wish. This is further supported by the Archives of Toxicology study in 2013, stating that the lack of direct comparison of human data versus that of a rat puts in question the usefulness of research data.
Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation Nobody Told You About
For example, insulin was discovered through a test where dogs had their pancreases removed. Also small animals like are preferred than big animals to minimize the waste due to dead animals. The British Royal Society has released a statement regarding animal research, noting that almost every 20th century medical achievement relied on the use of animals in some way during the development process. Debates have roared in the medical fraternity related to animal research since ages. What they don't tell, is the fact that the use of animals in research has its own share of negative implications as well. And in some cases, animals may suffer from chemical poisoning or injuries, which would force them to live the rest of their life in captivity.
With this alternative, researchers can no longer use the excuse that they need a living, whole-body system to run experiments. Without chimpanzees, a vaccine for Hepatitis B never would have been found. While more research might expand society's knowledge base, why is this research necessary and how can it be justified? Millions of them would have died from distemper, rabies, leukemia, tetanus, infectious hepatitis virus, parvo or anthrax. As has been said earlier, an animal does not have the capability to express pain and suffering, and it is this drawback that human beings take advantage of to perform these dangerous experiments on. So when large scale use of frogs and toads is done, it leads to possible extinction of these animals. In the end, it entirely depends on you whether you are a sane, responsible human being, or an individual with a blindfold of vested commercial interests.
Most of these experts use mice, goats and other animals to test different discoveries they had and learn whether their experimentations can be used with humans. Given that there are both pros and cons of the animal experimentation procedures, it is your decision whether you should be supporting this kind of experimentations or not. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. If vaccines were not tested on animals, a lot of them could have died from diseases and health conditions, such as hepatitis, rabies, leukemia, anthrax, parvo, hip dysplasia, glaucoma, etc. You can see both the sides of animal testing facts tilt the scales of the balance equally.
This includes new drugs as well as possible cures for many different medical problems. Categories Tags , Post navigation. Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. There are many books in the library that will never be used this year or next year. To discover new medicines and vaccinations, millions of animals are killed every year all across the globe. In comparison, a mouse has a lifespan of 2-3 years, allowing researchers the opportunity to study through research and experimentation how something may affect the life cycle.
It provides an ethical alternative solution to testing. Medical breakthroughs need not involve animals Is animal experimentation really that necessary in discovering treatments and cures? It is the worst form of animal abuse that is institutionalized and sanctioned by our society. The drug was definitely tested on animals before it was released commercially. Many animals are bound, incapable of movement, or are otherwise incapacitated during many of these experiments, making it an often cruel experience for the animals. Considering that human beings can live up to 80 years or more, scientists who are conducting tests would be dead before they can gather results. These only shows that animal tests are wasting plenty of government dollars allocated for research. Animals make poor test subjects This statement is a direct contradiction from what proponents believe about how closely related animals and humans are anatomically and biologically, because of the many metabolic, cellular, and anatomical differences between the two species.
