(PDF) Use of animals in experimental research
6 Pages1423 Words263 Views
Added on 2021-03-16
(PDF) Use of animals in experimental research
Added on 2021-03-16
ShareRelated Documents
ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH1Animals are not for ResearchStudent InstitutionCourse NameInstructor Date
ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH2Animals are not for ResearchIn the past decades, animals for research and testing for products' safety have been a controversial topic. According to Rosenfield et al. (2020), approximately sixty per cent of animals have been utilized in biomedicine testing and product-safety testing over the years. Different people have diverse feelings for animals. Some individuals look at animals as their companion, and they are also those who recognize animals as a tool for advancing or furthering medical procedures and scientific research. Regardless of these perceptions, it has remained the fact that animals are exploited for research by cosmetic firms and food companies around the globe. Although humans benefit from animals research, the suffering, the death, and the pain of animals are not worth these benefits being enjoyed by individuals. Thus, using animals for research or testing of the safety of products should be stopped.Animals should not be used for research because their rights are being violated. Armstrong and Botzler (2016) stipulated that that animal have moral rights to be treated respectfully. Therefore, when animals are perceived as tools for scientific experiments, they are not accorded fundamental rights. Like humans, animals can think, behave, feel, and experience pain, implying that they need to be treated with respect as individuals. However, animals' rights are being violated because researchers use animals for the experiment without thinking about other specimens. Rosenfield et al. (2020) reported that tests that animals are subjected to are painful and can lead to permanent damage or even death. Thus, any experiment that animals and aim to benefit humans is morally wrong since animals' rights are infringed (Rosenfield, 2020). The decisions for involving animals in research are made by humans, suggesting that animals may not be willing to participate in the study to advance new technology and human welfare. Humans are the decision-makers for the fate of animals in the field of research leading to
ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH3violation of animals’ rights without considering their quality of lives or wellbeing (Armstrong & Botzler, 2016). For these reasons, animals’ experimentation needs to be stopped since it is a way of violates. Tests of products on animals is not necessary because there are possible alternatives. For example, in the present, many cosmetic firms have looked for better ways of testing their products without utilizing animals in the tests. According to Mardani, Ayuningtyas & Putri (2019), cosmetics and bath-soap businesses develop their products using natural ingredients, such as Basil nut oil and bananas. Through natural ingredients, the companies advocate for safe human usage and discourage animal testing from determining their products' safety (Mardani, Ayuningtyas & Putri, 2019). Further, the development of synthetic cellular tissues, resembling human skin has practically made the Draize test obsolete (Garattni & Grignaschi, 2017). This development means that scientists can now test the possible damage associated with a product to human skin by using this cellular tissue instead of using animals in a testing (Garattni & Grignaschi, 2017). Mardani, Ayuningtyas and Putri (2019) added that another alternative to animal testing is Eyetex. Eyetex is a synthetic material product that turns opaque when damaged by a product, thus, reassembling the way humans’ eyes react when exposed to harmful substances. Besides, in vitro testing, there is a viable alternative in which cellular tests are conducted in a test tube. The tests are proven to be reliable and useful alternatives for testing products instead of animal testing. Thus, there are effective techniques for testing products without using live animals specimens, implying that testing potentially harmful effects on animals is not necessary.The suffering and pain that animals involved in experiments are subjected to are not worth benefiting humans. Rosenfield et al. (2020) explained that the American Veterinary
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Animal Liberation from Experiments Reportlg...
|5
|1780
|40
Stop Animal Testinglg...
|7
|1669
|190