Say No to Animal Experimentation Essay Example

chemicals that will undergo animal testing is staggering - currently over 85,000 on the market are scheduled to be tested soon. Additionally, it is projected that this year alone there will be an additional introduction of 1,500 to 2,000 new toxic chemicals further contributing to the existing pool of harmful substances (Fano, par. 9).

In brief, the knowledge and recognition of different types of animal cruelty around the world are restricted. While certain facilities now release animals after conducting tests, there are lasting consequences on their physical and mental health. Moore, the author, recounts his own encounters with Bowie, his rescued cat, from adoption until present time. Even after five years, Bowie continues to hide when visitors arrive and Moore cannot hold him because he dislikes being restrained (Moore, par.).

6). Bowie the cat clearly has a problem with humans. It is possible that the cat experienced aggressive and harmful testing in laboratories, which has left lasting trauma. Animals are still being subjected to suffering for human convenience. It is crucial for people to recognize the cruelty involved and seek alternative methods. Society needs to uncover the hidden realities that scientists try to keep hidden within laboratory walls. We are now more aware than ever of the unnecessary aspects of animal research.

Scientists are failing to communicate the true costs of animal testing in comparison to vitro testing, which utilizes human blood, cells, or other tissues. The Humane Society International provides information on these costs, highlighting a significant difference that could benefit both animals and taxpayers. Switching to alternative testing methods could save both money and innocent animal lives.

Richard Klausner believes that conducting experiments on animals actually

prolongs the search for a cure. He suggests that although cancer research has traditionally centered on curing cancer in mice, this method has not proven successful in humans. Consequently, it is evident that animal testing produces negative consequences.

Animal testing may not be the optimal solution for addressing our issues, as it is important to recognize its limitations in terms of accuracy. Despite the widely acknowledged fact that rats are not a perfect match for humans in various aspects, they are often utilized as substitutes for human experiments in scientific studies. Alix Fano emphasizes that rats, with their significantly higher susceptibility to cancer compared to humans, are frequently studied for potential cancer treatments (par. 2).

In general, it is not appropriate for an animal with much lower tolerance to illness compared to humans to be the main subject of an experiment. It is widely agreeable that discovering a cure for cancer would be ideal, but it is expected that the experiments conducted would be done ethically. The photographer, in "Personal Cancer Mice", demonstrates how some scientists inject cancer into animals' delicate bodies in the hopes of finding a cure for the same type of cancer in humans. This involves taking samples of cancer cells from a human and inserting them into a mouse to potentially find a cure for their specific form of cancer (Semansky). Inserting image...

Despite potentially positive results for the human model, we must question the ethics of this experiment. While many overlook the cruelty happening in the world, closer examination reveals that it may not be as accurate as hoped. Animals are currently used in research to advance various aspects of human medical advancements,

cosmetic discoveries, and meeting consumption needs. With the world's population rapidly increasing, society must find ways to feed the growing numbers. As Moss points out, piglets in a research center in Nebraska have almost doubled in number through genetic alteration (par. 3). This example demonstrates how adjusting genetics and increasing piglet numbers can help provide food for future generations.

However, this practice alters the nutrients and food supply for each piglet in the womb, resulting in weaker piglets after birth. About half of these piglets would either be crushed by their larger mothers, who have been adjusted to live longer and become larger than average, or they would be too fragile and easily break (Moss, par. 3). Despite this, animals have proven to be valuable assets in accomplishing societal goals through medical advancements. For instance, chimpanzees have been used as models for biomedical scientists due to their physical resemblance to humans. As a result, breakthroughs in medical research, such as cures for Hepatitis-C, have been made (Animals in Biomedical Research: A Vital Scientific Resource, par. 15). Therefore, it is evident that animals, including chimps, play a crucial role in advancing medical studies.

Society now accepts sacrificing other organisms, like chimpanzees, to enhance their own lives. However, we fail to acknowledge the devaluation of another living being's existence, one similar to ourselves. Although animals have played a crucial role in advancing technology, it is now imperative to seek alternatives due to the harmful and potentially fatal nature of these cruel acts. Pain, as we know it, originates from nociceptive signals within the central nervous system (Recognition and Alleviation of Pain in Laboratory Animals 28). What if there existed

a micro-organism incapable of experiencing such sensations?

There is a positive development in the field of biomedical and cosmetic experimentation. An organism called "Protozoa" has emerged, which could potentially eliminate the need for animals in testing laboratories and allow them to return to their natural environment (Zuckermar, par. 2). This advancement opens up new possibilities for revolutionizing our approach to these experiments. It is important to acknowledge that using animals for experimentation is unnecessary and unjust, as it violates their right to live freely and exposes them to harmful treatment.

Scientists have created a new method called "vitro testing" in which human blood, cells, and tissues are moved onto a computer chip model. This provides an alternative to animal testing and has the potential to advance biomedical and cosmetic research.

Eliminating animals from biomedical and cosmetic experimentation is important for both ethical and scientific reasons. One alternative is silico model testing, a computer simulation that mimics the human body's response to diseases (Alternatives to Animal Testing, par. 6). By using this method, we can completely replace the use of live animal models in these studies.

The discovery of a new alternative to animal experimentation offers hope in preventing the unfortunate life and untimely death of Marilyn the rabbit. This issue remains crucial and will continue to be so until a resolution is found, as innocent animals are at risk. Urgent action must be taken to address this problem, or it may never be resolved. It is unjust for animals to suffer for the sake of promoting human health. Consider how humans would feel if their last moments were a struggle for survival, without even living out half their expected

lifespan - all because a scientist wanted to create a new mascara with voluminous lashes at the local drugstore.

As a community, we can make an impact today by inspecting our products for animal testing and boycotting them. Additionally, spreading awareness about this issue and supporting organizations that fight to save animals through donations are also important steps to take. By taking any of these actions, you can become the catalyst for change.

Works Cited

1. “Alternatives to Animal Testing.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2018.PETA,
   https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/
2. “Animals in Biomedical Research: A Vital Scientific Resource.” Targeted News Service, 2018.SIRS Issues Researcher,
   https://kidd.blinn.edu:2066.

The text consists of information on references including their respective links and citation details.The following sources are available for reference:
1. "Alternatives to Animal Testing" by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in 2018, accessible at https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/.
2. "Animals in Biomedical Research: A Vital Scientific Resource" by Targeted News Service in 2018, available on SIRS Issues Researcher at https://kidd.blinn.edu:2066.
3. "Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing" by Human Society International, found at http://www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_product_testing/facts/time_and_cost.html.
4. Alix Fano's article titled "Challenge to Science: Beastly Practice," published in Ecologist in May 2000. This article can be accessed through SIRS Issues Researcher at https://kidd.blinn.edu:2066.
5. Lastly, a graph titled "Animals in Research" was published on April 18th.

2003. New York Times Upfront (Online), SIRS Issues Researcher, https://kidd.blinn.edu:2068.

SIRS Issues Researcher.

'In Quest for More Meat Profits, U.S. Lab Lets Animals Suffer.' New York Times, 20 Jan. 2015, pp. A.1. SIRS Issues Researcher.

Unified and

The SIRS Issues Researcher contains articles on various issues such as the unethical treatment of animals in US labs for meat production as reported by Moss, Michael in his article 'In Quest for More Meat Profits, U.S. Lab Lets Animals Suffer' published in the New York Times on 20 Jan. 2015 (pp. A.1). Another author contributing to this research is Pippin, John.

The article "Personal Cancer Mice" was written by Patrick Semanksy on September 19, 2014. It is available on the SIRS Issues Researcher website at https://kidd.blinn.edu:2068.