Animals shouldn’t be used for testing because it’s inhumane and it will make the population go down. Studies of animal testing have been recorded saying that they could be wasting their time on making medical substances to help human diseases. If they found out that it was a waste of money and time, it would prove that using animals for testing is inhumane. This is also unnecessary. The great
It tells all about the negative details of animal testing and the harming to the animals, but it doesn’t include the benefits of animal testing. It talks about the history of developments in the medical field but denies the fact that animal testing has helped those developments. This information will help me talk about the other side of my argument. It 's good to touch base
Numerous people have attempted to justify the use of such methods by putting down or rather, dismissing the animal as a creature lacking the mental capacities to be considered equals to that of a human being. In their book "Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issue" authors Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum say, "holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (104). He then goes on to explain that "animals do not have such moral capacities" (Baird 105). And as a result of this "we can't violate their rights because they have none" (Baird 105). Dismissing the animal as nothing more then an object may not seem like the most reasonable defense against the use of animals for testing
Zoos do not educate nor do they empower or inspire children to become conservationists”(Jenson E.). This proves to be significant because although some say zoos are educational they prove of no worth to the amount of information we as humans obtain. Also when children see how these animals were taken out of their natural habitats and put in synthetic homes it can damage the kids. For instance, there have been cases of bacterial infections that could possibly put the children and adult sin danger. On example of this is e. coli bacteria which can be found in some reptiles areas in the zoo.
Those statistics come from the US Department of Agriculture (New Technologies). Many argue that animal testing is not helpful and unnecessary. According to Andrew Rowan, “Aside from the ethical issues [animal testing] pose[s]--inflicting both physical as well as psychological distress and suffering on large numbers of sentient creatures--animal tests are time- and resource-intensive . . .
Animal testing, though beneficial for scientific study, discovery, and experimentation, can be detrimental and threatening for the animals tested on, making it a very debatable and controversial topic. Hope R. Ferdowsian, a George Washington University Assistant Clinical Professor in the Department of medicine, and Nancy Beck, a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, are authors of the article “Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research.” They discuss the “3 R’s” as being the reduction, refinement, and replacement of animals when doing scientific research. They write, “These principles encouraged researchers to work to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered
This allows the test subject to know what they are getting into and if there is any danger. This is one of the many reasons again why I am against animal testing. The animals can be treated poorly and thrown into so many stressful and dangerous situations, and they have no say in any of it. Scientist do however explain why animals make good test subjects, they couldn’t do test on some humans to see what happens when you do something to the brain but because some animals are similar they can get close enough results. Yes, animal subjects help science and without it I know we wouldn’t have some of the advances like we do
Animal testing - this issue is one of the most controversial issues discussed around the world today. Many argue that animal testing is inhumane, and that animals should no longer be used for the benefit of mankind. However, I can confidently argue that animal testing is, in fact, the best way to prove a product to be safe. In a survey done in the US, 99% of the active physicians thought that animal testing should be continued - for the present, it is clear that no alternative to animal testing is accurate enough to replace it. Without animal testing, we will become the subject of experiments.
When one thinks of animals in captivity, most of the time we don 't notice cruelty, animals have shelter, they are fed, they have medical care, basic needs are taken care of. Unfortunately when you go deeper you recognize that even the best intentions for captive animals are cruel. Animals in captivity show abnormal behaviors, severe signs of stress and overall unhappiness. These behaviors are for several reasons. The quality and expectancy of an animal 's life is decreased due to small enclosures and limited socialization and thus negative mental health, which in some cases can be harmful for humans.