Posted: December 7th, 2022

Argumentative Essay on Animal Testing

Argumentative Essay on Animal Testing

II English Composition

Introduction

For decades, animal testing has been a source of contention, with some defending the progress it has brought and others opposing the pain it causes animals. The procedure involves scientific procedures on living animals to research disease biology, articulate the efficacy of medicinal products, and test the safety of various products on consumers, such as cosmetics and food additives. Proponents argue that the procedures have resulted in numerous breakthroughs in scientific discoveries for the benefit of humanity, which is most likely correct. Animals subjected to testing, on the other hand, suffer greatly and, in most cases, die. Humans are important, but these animals live and suffer just like humans, which begs the question, “Should animal testing be banned, and other forms of testing used?” This essay examines the contentious issue of animal testing, emphasizing the need to ban it and incorporate alternative testing methods.
Statistics on Animal Testing
The section discusses animal testing statistics, as well as the procedures that animals are subjected to in laboratories. Furthermore, the section depicts the number of animals subjected to research as well as their mortality or harm rate. The statistics back up the thesis statement, which calls for an end to animal testing and the use of alternatives.
Common Research Procedures Exposed to Animals
For animals subjected to experimental procedures, pain and suffering are unavoidable. Chemical exposure during toxicity testing, infectious disease exposure, tail clipping and ear notching, and genetic manipulation are among the most common animal procedures. Furthermore, animals are subjected to long-term water and food deprivation, surgical procedures, burns and other injuries, and other procedures. In some cases, the animals are not subjected to treatment but are deliberately killed by researchers. Some experiments, for example, include decapitation and carbon-dioxide asphyxiation. Chemical and infectious disease exposure begins at levels high enough to cause pain, death, distress, and depression, among other things. Animals used in the procedures include monkeys, rats, fish, dogs, cats, and hamsters, among others. Regardless of the animal, pain is unavoidable, and the cruelty they endure for the sake of humanity is too great to overlook.
Numbers of Exposure
The sheer number of animals subjected to experimentation is unsettling to contemplate. According to reports, approximately 115 million animals are subjected to scientific experiments each year. However, most countries, including the United States of America, omit certain statistics, causing the figures to be vastly understated. Furthermore, countries such as France, the United Kingdom, and Germany use approximately ten million animals in laboratory experiments each year. Animals bred for research are not highlighted in statistics, as they are in the United States, and only the surplus is recorded (HSI, n.d). The Humane International Society emphasizes animal use transparency, a concept that most countries ignore, raising concerns about how little the world knows about the procedures. According to animal rights activists, the United States of America is one of the leading countries in experiments that end the lives of millions of animals. According to reports, more than a hundred million animals are killed in the country during various experimentation procedures. Some are exposed to toxic substances; others have holes drilled in their bodies; and still others are subjected to extreme acts such as having their spinal cords crushed. Furthermore, animals are subjected to psychological torture by being deprived of their natural habitats and are frequently confined behind isolated cages (PETA, n.d). Ultimately, researchers regard animals as laboratory property or equipment.
Opinions of Animal Testing Supporters
Animal testing supporters argue that the procedures are for the greater good and save many human lives. Furthermore, they argue that animal experiments have left an imprint on medical history for centuries, implying that they must have been effective. Finally, they emphasize the importance of effective animal regulation laws in regulating researchers. Addressing some of the benefits of animal experimentation sheds light on the supporters’ points of view.
The Benefits of Animal Testing Procedures
According to proponents, animal experimentation has several advantages. To begin with, the procedures have advanced medicine over time. According to British Royal Society reports, animal experimentation fueled the majority of twentieth-century medical advances (Gaille, 2017). Furthermore, society contends that live testing outweighs computer simulations, which are required in research procedures. Second, it ensures the safety of products that have been released. Animal experimentation reduces the risk factors associated with drugs, cosmetics, additives, and related products. Third, researchers contend that animals are the most similar to human anatomy. As a result, when compared to other testing alternatives, the testing outcomes are more likely to synchronize with humans. For example, a mouse’s genetic profile is 98% similar to that of a human, while chimps are 99% similar to humans. Because organs and disease reactions are so similar, researchers prefer them (Gaille, 2017). Animal testing is regarded as a cornerstone of significant discoveries. Additional perspectives back animal testing procedures. Although animal testing causes deaths, supporters argue that human deaths would be higher if the procedures were not used (Gaille, 2017). Humans are more legally protected than animals, and terminating a person’s life during experimentation has serious consequences. Second, animal testing enables researchers to observe the entire life cycle. The average human life expectancy is between seventy and eighty years. Animals, on the other hand, have a life expectancy of two to three years, so scientists can observe them for three years to determine the effects of a product on humans. Finally, supporters argue that animal experimentation is governed by laws. The United States, for example, has regulated animal testing since the mid-1960s. There are committees that monitor the practice and ensure that humane treatment is provided. Furthermore, veterinarians must inspect the living conditions of the testing species (Gaille, 2017). Finally, one might wonder why, despite the practice’s regulations, animal testing is associated with cruelty.
Examples of Animal Testing Regulations
Proponents highlight the practice as a “not too bad” affair because of animal testing regulations. Several regulations serve as guidelines for researchers conducting animal experiments. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS), and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee are some of them (IACUC). According to AWA policy, animals in testing facilities are entitled to medical care, food, and appropriate housing (HG, n.d). However, many animals are barred from participating in the act because researchers believe it will disrupt certain types of experiments. Furthermore, the 1985 PHS policy applies to institutions of higher learning that conduct research with Public Health Service funds. The practice must be carried out in accordance with the IACUC animal safety guidelines by researchers at the institutions. According to IACUC guidelines, researchers must; highlight a just because that requires using animals, animals must be given drugs to minimize the pain of the procedures, and animals should be used as a last resort. The experiment should not be a carbon copy of another study (HG, n.d). The policies highlighted are among the many established by the United States to regulate animal testing practices. In the late 1980s, the European Union actively began to regulate animal testing practices. Animal laboratory testing policies varied across European Union member states until 1986, when the Council of European Communities issued a directive that eliminated the disparities. Animal reduction in experimentation processes, animal care guidelines, and the avoidance of unnecessary experiments are among the directives. Furthermore, European Union research facilities are required to submit a quarterly report on animal testing. Despite these guidelines, associations, and policies, millions of animals are tortured in the name of scientific advancement (Speaking of Research, n.d). Finally, one could argue that the regulations have done little more than they were intended to do in terms of regulating the negative effects of animal experimentation.
Opposition to Animal Testing
Many people and organizations support animal testing as a means of protecting humans, but animal rights activists disagree. Animals, like humans, experience pain, and no amount of legislation can mitigate the negative effects of animal experimentation. Many disadvantages of animal testing have been overlooked by researchers and animal testing supporters over time. This section backs up the essay’s thesis statement about the importance of eliminating animal testing and seeking better testing alternatives.
Animal Testing’s Drawbacks
Animal experimentation has more drawbacks than advantages. For starters, they are untrustworthy and have been known to fail. According to a Pew Research Centre report, more than half of adults in the United States oppose the practice, and those who support it do so because they believe it aids in medical advancement (PETA, n.d). As a result, the results of animal experiments rarely match those of humans. Diseases induced in animals, according to an article published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, do not correspond to those that occur in humans. Furthermore, the biological compositions of animals differ, emphasizing the improbability of similar outcomes in humans. The unreliability of animal research has been highlighted by medical experts such as Dr Richard Klausner, who highlighted the National Cancer Institute, which had healed cancer in mice but failed in humans. Former National Institute of Health Director Elias Zerhouni agreed, calling animal testing an outdated research method and advocating for new approaches. As a result, an article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal revealed that researchers frequently exaggerate animal testing results and avoid publishing failed experiments. Last but not least, research shows that while approximately 85 HIV/AIDS vaccines have been tested in animals, none have been tested in humans (PETA, n.d). The overwhelming evidence supports the practice’s unreliability. Second, animal testing procedures are expensive. Some of the animals used in experiments are purchased or auctioned, which is an expensive process. Furthermore, the animals’ provisions during the procedures necessitate funds, yet some of the products for which the animals suffer are never released into the market (Future of Working, n.d). Third, regardless of care, suffering during animal testing is investable. For example, the Draize Test was a cosmetic test on rabbits in which their eyelids were held back for three days, causing pain and strain. Animals are also forced to consume toxic substances, which kill or maim them for the rest of their lives. Fourth, proponents argue that prior animal testing eliminates the risk of various products harming humans. The tested products were lethal to human health. For example, thalidomide, a sleeping pill tested and approved for human consumption in the 1950s, caused severe baby deformities when consumed by pregnant women. Furthermore, Vioxx, an arthritis medication tested on mice, was effective in protecting their hearts but caused cardiac arrests and deaths in humans (Future of Working, n.d). The logic behind animal testing is to protect human lives, and the practice makes no sense if human lives are still endangered despite multiple animals sacrificing their lives for the greater good.
Animal Testing Procedures Alternatives
Animal rights activists do not oppose the process unless they present better and safer alternatives. Cell cultures, human tissues, volunteer studies, and computer models are some of the alternatives. In the laboratory, most human and animal cells can be replicated (Cruelty Free International, n.d). Scientists have grown cells in 3D structures and created “organ-on-chip” devices using human cells. The devices mimic various aspects of human anatomy and can thus be used to study biological processes and product reactions, among other things. Furthermore, diseased or healthy human tissues extracted from volunteers improve human disease and biological process testing. Furthermore, technology has advanced to the point where computer models and scientists can replicate human model aspects, allowing for more efficient and risk-free research. Finally, technology has made it possible for scientists to study human volunteers using scanning machines and other devices. Brain imaging machines, for example, can track the progression of brain disease treatment in human volunteers. Researchers can also use the micro dosing technique to measure potential drugs in small amounts ingested by human volunteers (Cruelty Free International, n.d). The ultimate benefit of testing on human volunteers is that, unlike animals, humans can describe their feelings after using the products.
Evidence of Non-Animal Testing Success
Numerous success stories of non-animal testing have been documented in research. To begin, Alois Alzheimer discovered the primary symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease by studying deceased patients. Second, because smoking does not cause cancer in animals, the researchers who discovered it caused cancer used human studies. Third, the Draize cosmetic test on rabbits only predicted a 60% effect on human skin, whereas tests on reconstituted human skin were 85% accurate. Toxic chemical tests on animals to determine the effects on unborn babies are 60% accurate, while tests on human stem cells are 93% accurate (Cruelty Free International, n.d). The examples are numerous, and they demonstrate the possibility of success in research without subjecting animals to experimental torture.
Conclusion
For decades, animal testing has been tolerated, and change is frequently resisted. It has been used to achieve research success since time immemorial, but it deserves to be forgotten. Animal testing supporters have logical opinions about the procedures and their outcomes, but statistics show that the procedures are highly unreliable. As a result, testing on alternatives is a win-win situation for researchers, humans, and animals, because no animals are harmed in the process, and the goal of protecting human health is still met. Animal testing procedures should eventually be prohibited, and alternative testing methods should be implemented.
References
International Cruelty-Free Organization (n.d). Animal Testing Alternatives Cruelty Free International, Retrieved September 22, 2022: https://crueltyfreeinternational.org/about-animal-testing/alternatives-animal-testing
Working in the Future (n.d). 12 Benefits and Drawbacks of Animal Testing on Cosmetics Future of Working, September 22, 2022: https://futureofworking.com/12-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-animal-testing-on-cosmetics/
L. Gaille (2017, August 21). 14 Animal Research Benefits and Drawbacks Ittana, https://vittana.org/14-pros-and-cons-of-animal-research#::text=The%20advantage%20of%20animal%20research,decreases%20the%20value%20of%20life.
HG. (n.d) (n.d). What are the Animal Testing Regulations? Retrieved from HG.org on September 22, 2022: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-are-the-laws-regarding-animal-testing-31865
HSI. (n.d) (n.d). Concerning Animal Testing. Retrieved from Humane Society International on September 22, 2022: https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/ PETA (n.d). Animal Testing Statistics and Facts PETA, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/ (accessed September 22, 2022).
In terms of research (n.d). EU Animal Research Regulations. Speaking of Research, https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/animal-research-regulations-in-the-eu/ (accessed September 22, 2022).
Questions for Thought
Q1: What is the most difficult aspect of research?
Finding accurate sources was the most difficult aspect of the research because some sources are biased by the author’s views on animal testing. Furthermore, comparing sources took a long time before settling on the ones with detailed and precise information.
Q2: Efficacy of the Thesis Statement
The thesis statement advocates for the prohibition of scientific animal testing practices and the implementation of alternative methods. The working thesis is effective because the essay argues it from both opponents’ and supporters’ points of view. Furthermore, the essay emphasized alternative methods to animal testing, lending support to the proposal to outlaw animal experimentation practices.
Q3: Review of the Outline
The outline discusses animal testing from two perspectives: opponents and supporters. It also mentions alternatives to animal testing, forming a logical argument in support of the research question about prohibiting animal testing practices. Furthermore, the outline highlights sources used in the main essay, allowing for a comparison of the information in the outline and the detailed essay.
Q4: Follow-up Questions
The topic raised interest in two concepts by emphasizing both the cruel and beneficial aspects of animal testing. In the future, it would be interesting to learn the other side of the story, which would entail discovering how scientists feel when they subject animals to experiments. Second, one might consider society’s moral obligation to animals.
I. Introduction
A. Animal testing has been a source of contention for decades, with some applauding the progress it has brought and others condemning the pain it causes animals.
B. Proponents argue that the procedures have resulted in numerous breakthroughs in scientific discoveries for the benefit of humanity, which is likely true.
C. Animals subjected to testing suffer significant pain and suffering, and in most cases die.
D. Humans are important, but these animals live and suffer just like humans, which begs the question, “Should animal testing be banned, and other forms of testing used?”
II. Thesis Proposition: This essay examines the contentious issue of animal testing, emphasizing the need to ban it and incorporate alternative testing methods.
Statistics on Animal Testing-
The section discusses animal testing statistics, as well as the procedures that animals are subjected to in laboratories.
A. Common Procedures Exposed to Animals During Research
1. Chemical exposure during toxicity testing, infectious disease exposure, tail clipping and ear notching, and genetic manipulation are the most common animal procedures.
2. In some cases, the animals are not subjected to treatment but are deliberately killed by researchers.
3. The animals used in the procedures include monkeys, rats, fish, dogs, cats, and hamsters, among others.
B. Numbers Exposure
1. The sheer number of animals subjected to experimentation is unsettling to contemplate.
2. Most countries, including the United States of America, omit certain statistics, resulting in vastly understated figures.
3. The Humane International Society emphasizes animal use transparency, a concept that most countries ignore, raising concerns about how little the world knows about the procedures.
four. source (Humane Society International, Testing Statistics)
IV. Animal Testing Supporters’ Opinions- Animal testing supporters argue that the procedures are for the greater good and save many human lives.
A. Benefits of Animal Testing Procedures
1. According to proponents, animal experimentation has several advantages.
2. Supporters argue that live testing outweighs computer simulations, which are required in research procedures.
3. Animals, according to researchers, are the most similar to human anatomy.
4. There are committees that monitor the practice and ensure that humane treatment is provided.
5th. source (Gaille, Testing Advantages)
Examples of Animal Testing Regulations
1. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS), and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee are all examples (IACUC).
2. According to AWA policy, animals in testing facilities are entitled to medical care, food, and appropriate housing.
3. The PHS policy applies to higher education institutions that conduct research with Public Health Service funds.
4. According to IACUC guidelines, researchers must; emphasize a just because this requires the use of animals.
5. The European Communities Council issued a directive to eliminate disparities.
6. References (Hg, Testing Regulations: Speaking of Research, Testing Regulations)
V. Animal Testing Opposition Opinions- While many people and organizations support animal testing as a way to protect humans, animal rights activists disagree with the proponents.
A. Animal Testing Disadvantages
1. The results of animal experiments rarely match those of humans.
2. Animal testing procedures are expensive.
3. Suffering during animal testing is an investment, regardless of the care.
4. The tested products were lethal to human health.
5. Sources (PETA/Future of Work, Testing Consequences)
B. Animal Testing Procedure Alternatives
Scientists have grown cells in 3D structures and created “organ-on-chip” devices using human cells.
Human disease and biological process testing can be improved by using diseased or healthy human tissues extracted from volunteers.
Computer models and scientists can replicate human model aspects, allowing for more efficient and risk-free research.
Source (Cruelty Free International, Testing Alternatives) (Cruelty Free International, Testing Alternatives)
C. Evidence of Non-Animal Testing Success
1. By studying dead patients, Alois Alzheimer discovered the main symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.
2. Cosmetics tests on human cells are more accurate than tests on animals.
3. When tested on human stem cells, toxic chemicals are more accurate.
four. source (Cruelty Free International, Alternative Testing Success Stories)
VI. Conclusion
A. For decades, animal testing has been tolerated, and change is often resisted.
B. Animal testing supporters have logical opinions about the procedures and their outcomes.
C. Statistics show that animal testing is unreliable, which is why alternative methodologies are proposed.
D. Animal testing procedures should be prohibited, and alternative testing methods should be implemented.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Argumentative Essay on Animal Testing