Animal Testing: Cruel or Beneficial? by JINGYAN WU

Source#1

8jwu127 — 2018-02-28 17:20:37 UTC

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific & Commercial Testing?

Counterargument

8jwu127 — 2018-02-28 17:22:35 UTC

A common counterpoint is that animals testings will contribute to life saving remedies and cures. Many lives were saved with animal tested treatments, like the polio vaccine. While this claim is accurate and understandable, it is still wrong. As stated before, animal tests are guaranteed have the same results on humans. Animal testings, whether they're scientific or commercial, are inhumane and cruel. The US Department of Agriculture reported that " 71,370 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,272 nonhuman primates, 5,771 rabbits, 24,566 guinea pigs, and 33,280 hamsters in 2016." A lot of experimented animals are left helpless, disfigured, and dead after the experiments. To add on, studies show that animals can feel and suffer like humans can. Consequently, it is possible for them to end up with severe mental impairments.

Body Paragraph 1

8lvo8571 — 2018-03-01 17:00:43 UTC

First of all, it shows that there were awful cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. For instance, the article "Animal Testing - Pros/Cons," it states, "An incident at the University of California at Davis Center for Neuroscience, "three baby mice were found sealed alive in a plastic baggie and left unattended" on a laboratory counter, according to the Sacramento Bee." This evidence is significant because it explains to us that the animals used in the experiments are being terribly abused. For this reason, the animals are dying because of dehydration, hypoglycemia, suffocation, hyperthermia, and seizures. Thus, the Animal Welfare Act is trying their best to prevent this from happening.

Body Paragraph 3

8sngu081 — 2018-03-01 17:01:16 UTC

In addition, different methods exist to substitute the need for scientists to test on animals. Based on the facts from the article, scientists have determined, with test tube testings, that using human cells instead of animal cells produces more consistent results. For example, artificial skin can be made from sheets of human skin cells, which can develop better outcomes than using chemicals on animal skin. This evidence needs to be considered because it proves that people aren't required to test on animals and are wasting their lives by experimenting on them. Therefore, living animals, with full lives ahead of them, don't have to be killed for reasons that they have to die for.

Body Paragraph 2

8etu933 — 2018-03-01 17:03:00 UTC

Furthermore, research has showed that animal testing wastes the lives of the animal subjects. According to the article, "Animal Testing - Pros/ Cons", it states that "A 2017 study found further flaws in animal studies including "incorrect data interpretation, unforeseen technical issues, incorrectly constituted (or absent) control groups, selective data reporting, inadequate or varying software systems, and blatant fraud." This is important to consider because animal subjects that are tested are killed after the experiment. At the same time, these animals are sacrificed for substandard research. As a result, the deaths of the animals were wasted and the scientists should reconsider the fact if they should actually take the lives of the animals for misinformation.

Introduction

8jwu127 — 2018-03-01 17:38:03 UTC

Charlie woke up in a dim, eerie room with white walls that smelled like nose-piercing chemicals . The strange people in white coats spent countless hours injecting weird smelling liquids into his skin. The agonizing needles were nothing compared to what they force him to eat and breathe. A scene like this may sound like it's coming straight out of a horror story, where the mad scientists morph a helpless person into a hideous mutant. Unfortunately, this is a real event that's happening almost every day. The only difference, however, is that Charlie is a dog. Animals are used as "text subjects" to find cures for diseases. There are other methods that scientist could use other than animals, but, using animals could lead to awful cases of animal abuse and wasting the lives of innocent animals.

Conclusion

8sngu081 — 2018-03-02 17:12:19 UTC

To summarize, the question to whether animal testing is cruel or beneficial is debatable. After reviewing our source of evidence, we believe that animal testing is cruel and that it should be stopped because it results in awful cases of animal abuse and deaths in research laboratories. Furthermore, it sacrifices the lives of the animal subjects in inhumane ways. For instance, instead of animal testing, different methods now exist to substitute the need for scientists to test on animals.

Source #2

8jwu127 — 2018-03-02 17:14:30 UTC

Issue Overview: Animal Testing