Animal Experimenting Essay Example

cause of death in the Western world is due to adverse reactions to prescription medications ("Flawed").

The inadequacy of animal testing as a method for drug experimentation is evident from the fact that 90% of drugs deemed safe after undergoing animal testing have failed during human testing, leading to delays in finding cures and missed opportunities to save lives. This outcome highlights the genetic differences between animals and humans, rendering vivisection an insufficient means for experimentation. Nonetheless, drug researchers contend that new testing methods are essential to prevent valuable drugs from remaining undiscovered. Despite its limitations, vivisection has significantly contributed to discovering treatments for polio, smallpox, and flu vaccines in recent decades.

Despite its limited effect on the significant surge in human life expectancy throughout the 20th century, animal experimentation holds great importance in drug research as vivisection is of paramount significance. Eliminating such practices would lead to costly testing on humans and jeopardize the lives of diabetics. It is also common for scientists to induce artificial symptoms in animals since they do not naturally develop human diseases, which arise from factors like stress, genetics, environmental elements or bad habits that take longer to manifest potential side effects due to humans' extended life expectancy compared to animals.

Performing drug experiments is likely to yield inaccurate results due to the inability of artificially induced diseases in experiments to authentically imitate or predict human diseases. It is immoral to disturb the natural environment of animals, regardless of their size, and deprive them of their right to live freely. Additionally, the scientists' and researchers' treatment towards animals is shocking; for instance, psychologists inflicted electric shocks on the feet of 1042

mice.

By administering more powerful shocks to either the eyes or other body parts of the animals, convulsions were induced.

According to Graft et al (1-2), various cruel experiments have been conducted on animals. In one experiment, rats in the US had tubes forced into their ears, while in Japan, rats were fitted with electrodes in their necks and eyeballs and made to run on treadmills for hours. Meanwhile, monkeys were made addicted to drugs via automatic injections, with some becoming "cold-turkey monkeys" observed to die in convulsions and even self-mutilation by plucking their hair or biting off their fingers and toes.

All animal experiments are conducted for the purpose of gaining knowledge or satisfying curiosity, with the belief that it will ultimately benefit society. Advocates of vivisection argue that sacrificing a "pet" is preferable to sacrificing a "child." They assert that testing on animals is necessary to find cures for deadly diseases in humans. Researchers maintain that animals have played a pivotal role in medical breakthroughs. Nevertheless, this does not excuse the cruelty inflicted upon animals used in experiments. Additionally, the United States spends millions on animal experimentation, while children across the globe suffer from treatable illnesses and starvation.

Instead of using billions of dollars on animal experimentation in universities, those funds could be allocated for scholarships and grants to provide every young person with access to a college education. This would leave millions available for addressing destitution in areas that lack resources, allowing for the provision of essential services such as food, clothing, vaccinations, and education for children ("Vivisection"). It is immoral that animals suffer pain, deprivation, and suffering due to human curiosity. According to Baird and

Rosenbaum's perspective on vivisection, "what is wrong is not the pain, suffering or deprivation; these things only add to the problem" (Vivisection). Society should take vivisection seriously since animals cannot defend themselves but can experience physical and emotional feelings like humans. Therefore it would be wrong to experiment on helpless animals if we cannot sacrifice humans just because of curiosity. Those who oppose vivisection are not hypocritical despite common claims.

Even though many people consume meat and wear leather, actions that contribute to animal deaths, they still protest against vivisection. It is unclear how they reconcile their beliefs with their behavior. Notably, anti-vivisection groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are also vegetarians. Ultimately, individuals have the freedom to choose their stance on animal treatment - whether it's vegetarianism, anti-vivisection advocacy or both, or neither. With technology improving in science and medicine, alternatives such as computer simulations and computer-aided drug design should be considered instead of animal experiments.

According to Dr. Walker from the University of Texas, computer simulations offer many advantages.

. Animal procurement savings offer a chance to rectify any mistakes or misinterpretations that may have occurred during the experiment's incorrect or repeated segments.

Computer-aided drug design, which combines "3-D computer graphics and the theoretical field of quantum pharmacology," is a method used by scientists to aid in the development of drugs (Graft et al 5). However, relying on technology poses a risk as electronic devices cannot fully replicate biological systems. In lieu of animal experimentation, large-scale human epidemiological studies have proven effective in identifying disease causes.

The link between smoking and lung cancer has been confirmed by epidemiological studies. Additionally, during the late

1970s, epidemiological studies were responsible for identifying AIDS through observations of unusual infections and tumors in patients (Graft et al 5). Although vivisection has produced conflicting results, both society and the scientific community acknowledge the validity of epidemiological research. As a result, researchers continue to assess information collected from the community.

While relying on information about communities for vivisection procedures poses accuracy challenges due to environmental variability, alternative approaches benefit all parties involved. Abolishing animal experimentation is the superior choice for the greater good of both humans and animals. This decision will spare animals from the distressing notion of separation from their kin, prevent millions of animal deaths, and eliminate painful experimentation experiences for countless others. Moreover, taxpayers' money will be better spent on community-based opportunities rather than vivisection expenses.

The elimination of vivisection would only be beneficial since it only results in death and lacks significant profits.