My Topic: My topic is all about the cruelties and misfortunes of animal testing. Throughout my essays I explain the concerns on the topic and the potential alternatives that can phase out animal testing
My Essays: Overall, animal testing is a cruel and unethical way to go about preserving human life. People don’t understand hoy terrible these processes are and they deserve to know. In order to pull the world out of these shady process’s there must be a slow and gradual implementation of alternatives to animal testing. More importantly, there must be a change in the laws that regard animal testing in order to take the first leap in the process of extinguishing it, Many people (especially scientists) have very skewed views regarding animal testing and ethical views must change regarding the pros and cons of the process.
My Research Methods: While researching this topic, I really looked into average peoples views. Any research company or activist groups articles that I read where extremely biased as expected, but every day people who truly have their own views and thoughts on the topic really helped me formulate my own point of view on the animal testing. Every day there are blogs and articles constantly being posted regarding the topic which I would always follow up on. As far as databases, I had spent some time looking through them regarding the topic, but it was a lot more facts than opinion and I felt as if I needed to see more points of view to formulate my argument rather than facts. I talked to multiple family members about the topic because as I got deeper into animal testing, the issue began to really interest me. By talking to people who have lived through this issue (my family) for a much more extensive period of time than I have, I was able to understand the true issues routed in animal testing. Basically, what I came to understand was that people didn’t care enough about animals to put them over themselves. This then forced me to look into how much of a necessity it was that live hosts be tested on.
Sources: http://animal-testing.procon.org , http://aavs.org/animals-science/how-animals-are-used/testing/ , http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12animal.html
Final Details/Observation: Ultimately, I gained immense amounts of respect of the people who protest this topic because of just how shady and unethical it is. People around the world stand up for their views on how terrible this process is and I hopped right on board. Most don’t truly understand what happens day in and day out because it is shielded by these huge corporation, but the people who do understand the reality are out there fighting for what they believe in. Personally that is a lesson in itself for me. Looking into the future, I would love nothing more then to see animal testing abolished all together and have alternatives that are protected by the strict laws that surround it.
In this essay I plan to demonstrate other routes and alternatives to animal testing. I will open up with how long animal testing has been around. Also with how little alternatives have been found during the process. Especially how little energy has been put into finding alternatives. I will also speak about the many negatives that has followed animal testing over the years.
I will then get into the body of my essay as I start speaking of alternatives that I have researched and my own thoughts on the possible ways to implement them. I will first start speaking of how they are now developing microchips with human organs scanned into them so a lot of tests can be done electronically. There have also been cadavers built to model exact human responses in which testing can also be done on.
This is an advertisement for the AACT and it is getting the message across that testing products on animals is abuse. The article was made with everyday people as the intended audience in order to protest animal testing and put people in the same shoes as the animals being forcefully tested on. It is a huge epidemic across the world because so many people are under the impression that animal testing is done in a humane way when really it is just as horrible as it looks in the advertisement. There are multiple animals, and yes, even dogs and cats, that are being tested on and killed over beauty products as irrelevant as eye liner.
The advertisement shows a dog’s paw in the top left corner of the photo holding a tool to apply eyeliner with a female looking like she is in agonizing pain. The photo is very ironic in that way because it is showing how the tables are turned and instead of the animals being tested on it is the humans, which no one takes kindly too. The other possible way to interpret what is happening in that section of the image would be that the dog is almost getting payback. For instance, this animal could have had multiple friends and family members used as test subjects and killed. Now it is the dog applying this womans makeup for her and destroying her face in the process just as the dog has seen in multiple different cases. Basically the whole advertisement is getting the point across that just as isn’t ethical to test on humans, it isn’t ethical to test on animals because they are also living breathing creatures.
The next part of the image that needs to be taken into account are the words scrambled throughout the advertisement. My favorite statement on the advertisement is, “This won’t hurt a bit,” because it is really dialing on how much people are kept in the dark about animal testing. Scientific research companies make a point of trying to show people how humane animal testing is and that is isn’t really all that bad. Which is patently untrue. Many people across the world believe that animals are not harmed during these processes, or that if they are the animals don’t feel anything. This image is protesting animal testing with the fact that many of these animals are severely hurt through this process, and most are even killed. Under the first set of words it says, “Swelling, blistering, ulcers, blindness, agony, death.” These words are most frequently used in describing human sickness when really animals can have the very same sickness. Although, in the animals cases, these terrible diseases are being distributed and acted upon by humans!
I have fully completed my essay at this point. I really like how it turned out because I truly believe in the points that I’m arguing in. I also really enjoyed arguing against Colin Blakemore because his argument was entirely opposite from mine. It made it enjoyable to poke holes throughout his entire argument. I honestly don’t necessarily dislike anything about my essay. My writing process for this essay was pretty much the same as my process for the first. I made my outline and followed it through by using my own personal perspectives mixed with others.
The peer review definitely helped me with my essay. My peer told me how to reformulate a few sentences to have a better flow throughout my essay. Reading his work gave me a lot of insight into my own paper just by the way he was writing.
My second essay is going to follow the same topic as my first except I am now going to be attacking the point of view of Colin Blakemore considering that he thinks animal testing must continue. Throughout his article he continuously says that animals are not used in testing where they aren’t necessary. Yet, millions of animals die every single year from animal testing without anyone really pursuing an alternative. He also speaks of how expensive it is to keep using animals for medical testing. It forces me to beg the question of, “If animal testing is so incredibly expensive and extremely unethical, then why is there not more energy being put into discovering more alternatives?” It seems like the researchers and scientists claim to dislike what they have to do, but their too lazy and close-minded to act upon what they preach and find a new way. It’s as if Mr. Blakemore is consistently stepping on his own toes.
Another issue I have with his article is that he tries to say that the only animals really being tested on are birds, fish, mice, and rats. First of all, who is to say that just because they are this species of animal that this is anymore “alright.” Maybe a fish or a mouse will not give a person the same level of compassion as a dog or a cat, but they are still living and breathing creatures with families and habits just as humans. On another note, Researches are even testing on dogs and cats! Which gives Mr. Blakemore’s argument the same appearance as animal testing. Unethical and Flawed.
Blakemore, Colin. “Should we experiment on animals? Yes.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 28 Oct. 2008. Web. 22 Mar. 2017.
“About Animal Testing.” Humane Society International. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.
These animals being tested on have no say in what is happening to them, and like Jeremy Bentham says, “The question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But, can they suffer”(Jeremy Bentham)? Many people believe that animal testing is humane because the animals are kept in ideal living conditions and do not experience pain throughout the process. Unfortunately, not many people look into it much further then what the hear on the news. Animals are being killed inhumanely and in pain every day. From this article, some alternatives are discussed on how to safely and humanely continue to process. It will be greatly useful in my paper when I speak of how the animals are really being treated and the ways in which people must re-evaluate their views.
Cohn, Meredith. “Study aims to check if other methods can replace animal testing.” Baltimoresun.com. N.p., 12 Mar. 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.
Over the years, animal testing has been the only process used by scientists in order to see if anything is safe for humans. People have revolted and been in uproar for decades now, but it is an extremely lucrative process and unfortunately the easiest test subjects are in fact animals. More recently people have been putting their foot down and saying, “Ive had enough.” Scientists at Johns Hopkins university have been intensely pursuing other ways in which chemicals can be tested without the use of a live host through things like cell mutations and computer models. Unfortunately, the only true way to know if something is safe or not is on a live host but millions of animals die each year from tests that don’t even prove to be successful. The scientists at Johns Hopkins motivation and goal is to be able to use technology in order to better narrow down what is going to work and what isn’t in order to decrease the amount of animal deaths when trying out their new research. This article will help in completing my project when I speak of different ways in which people can still test research chemicals and medicine through other forms of technology and not on live hosts.
Looking into the core pro’s and con’s (ProCon.org) of animal testing shows that their are not many alternatives. Unfortunately, a live host can only be simulated to a certain degree, and medicine can not be put onto the market until it is tested and proves to be a hundred percent safe. On another note, the other article ponders the question, ” Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research?” Both articles come to the conclusion that without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists’ efforts would be massively hampered, not only in the direct development of new treatments, but also in the fundamental research which branches across all biomedical knowledge. The conclusion of each article is that it would be less ethical to test these drugs on humans as opposed to animals until their is an adequate alternative.
On the other end of this argument, ProCon.org makes a point in stating that drugs that pass through animal testing is not necessarily safe for humans. The article in New International Magazine speaks about how animals internal makeup is not identical to a humans which leaves a chance for failure, however animals like,” Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans”(New International). Finally it comes down to this. Mostly everyone has a soft spot for animals, but would people rather be cured or be the test subjects.
The topic I have chosen deals with animal testing and asks the question, Is it necessary? Animal testing has been a very controversial topic ever since about. It began when medicine and cosmetic products were being created because the first thought was to, obviously, not have humans as the first test subject. But does that make it ethically correct to test these products on animals instead? ProCon.org (http://animal-testing.procon.org) has a great article with multiple pro’s and con’s posted by different scientists, medical professionals, regular people, religious groups, etc. that all discuss the positive and negative aspects to animal testing. A woman by the name of Elizabeth Fisher who is currently a professor at UCL Institute of Neurology, wrote an article all about why we should accept animal testing which is the point that I am arguing. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-elizabeth-fisher/why-we-should-accept-anim_b_3608923.html