(PDF) Use of animals in experimental research

Added on - 16 Mar 2021

  • 6


  • 1423


  • 17


  • 0


Trusted by +2 million users,
assist thousands of students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 3 of 6 pages
ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH1Animals are not for ResearchStudentInstitutionCourse NameInstructorDate
ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH2Animals are not for ResearchIn the past decades, animals for research and testing for products' safety have been acontroversial topic. According to Rosenfield et al. (2020), approximately sixty per cent ofanimals 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 theircompanion, and they are also those who recognize animals as a tool for advancing or furtheringmedical procedures and scientific research. Regardless of these perceptions, it has remained thefact that animals are exploited for research by cosmetic firms and food companies around theglobe. Although humans benefit from animals research, the suffering, the death, and the pain ofanimals are not worth these benefits being enjoyed by individuals. Thus, using animals forresearch 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 treatedrespectfully. Therefore, when animals are perceived as tools for scientific experiments, they arenot accorded fundamental rights. Like humans, animals can think, behave, feel, and experiencepain, implying that they need to be treated with respect as individuals. However, animals' rightsare being violated because researchers use animals for the experiment without thinking aboutother specimens. Rosenfield et al. (2020) reported that tests that animals are subjected to arepainful and can lead to permanent damage or even death. Thus, any experiment that animals andaim 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 animalsmay 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 wayof violates.Tests of products on animals is not necessary because there are possible alternatives. Forexample, in the present, many cosmetic firms have looked for better ways of testing theirproducts 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 safehuman usage and discourage animal testing from determining their products' safety (Mardani,Ayuningtyas & Putri, 2019). Further, the development of synthetic cellular tissues, resemblinghuman skin has practically made the Draize test obsolete (Garattni & Grignaschi, 2017). Thisdevelopment means that scientists can now test the possible damage associated with a product tohuman 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 toanimal testing is Eyetex. Eyetex is a synthetic material product that turns opaque when damagedby a product, thus, reassembling the way humans’ eyes react when exposed to harmfulsubstances. Besides, in vitro testing, there is a viable alternative in which cellular tests areconducted in a test tube. The tests are proven to be reliable and useful alternatives for testingproducts instead of animal testing. Thus, there are effective techniques for testing productswithout using live animals specimens, implying that testing potentially harmful effects onanimals is not necessary.The suffering and pain that animals involved in experiments are subjected to are notworth benefiting humans. Rosenfield et al. (2020) explained that the American Veterinary
You’re reading a preview
Preview Documents

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans

Download This Document