Animal Testing-Inhumane or Neccassary?
When looking through magazines or even turning on the television it is hard to miss some of the fastest growing and most controversial issues-animal testing. From models such as Kate Moss refusing to wear fur, to other famous people such as Bill Maher also refusing, there has been a lot argued on this subject more recently then ever. Over the years there has been a growing controversy over the issue of animal testing. There has equally been groups that have developed through all of this outrage, groups of both supporters for animal testing, and those who are agaisnt animal testing. Both sides have come up with perfectly good reasons for their arguments, however, there is no sure way to choose who is right. Over the years, the scientists, the ones who for the most part support the animal testing, have argued that it is the only way for us to safely resaerch the drugs and chemicals that us humans put into our body. They argue that because animals have functions similar to humans, that it only makes sense to use the animals for testing. By looking at both sides very carefully, both for and agaisnt animal testing can one make their own opinion on what they feel is right and wrong.
Many will say that the use of animals for testing is both inhumane and should not be allowed as an effective way to test products such as cosmetics and laundry detergents for our homes. There are many reasons as to why the animal rights activists feel this way. For example, it is a proven fact that the animal testing that is done is very expensive, and a majority of the time they do not correlate the connection between the animals and human health. People like this believe that it is our duty to look out for god's creatures, not destroy them or hurt them on purpose. In the long run, animal tests have proven to not be effective for long term, low levels of exposure, which allows for the effects to show up later and they take longer, sometimes even decades to show up. How, then, can it be logical to put these animals through all of that pain and not be sure that the results are even going to be right? That is what the activists argue, and today the point is even be reconsidered by the scientists. IN addition, the animal testing does not provide some of the vital information that is needed when a consumer is buying a product, and is therefor not fulfilling the purpose of the testing. The products that are animal tested do not indicate in any way the products safety or danger that affects humans. These animals are going through a lot of suffering by going through with these tests, allowing for much un-needed pain to go through. It is argued by these activists that any of the expiraments using animals rehash what has already been proven. They believe that no matter what, the amount of animal research by any stretch, be regarded as necessary. These results have been proven many times over, and the reasons for doing it are always the same-and the results are the same.
However, the scientific community would argue much differently on this subject. On this subject, they are even backed up by the Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration is convinced that to some small degree the the testing of animals provides the ultimate reassurance that products ultimately applied to sensitive areas around the eyes will work. There are many good aspects that are developing through the animal testing. For example, the use of this animal testing is being used for the COX-2 inhibitors, and is speeding up the research that they are doing. With this, the testing is useful in prevention as well as the treatment of colon, skin and bladder cancer. One of the researchers in this study said "I think there is a great deal of promise with the COX-2 inhibitors based on the fact that there is a lot of epidemiological evidence and data from the animal studies suggesting these drugs can inhibit the development of tumors." Without the use of animals foe medical research researchers argue, we are saving human lives. This is because by using these animals we are creating medical breakthroughs that are allowing us to explore new drugs and create new cures for problems that arise on our lives. "Anybody who accepts the notion that disease is caused by a disturbance of anatomy or physiology is going to agree that animal research is necessary." Is what Adrian Morrison, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania school of Veternarians stated when asked about the need for animal research. "A careful reading of the historical record reveals that it's been absolutely indispensible for discovering and understanding basic biological processes."
The public interest in animal research did not begin to grow until the 1970's when consumers became aware of the scope of the animal testing. This is when they learned about the procedures and the horrifying circumstances that these animals had to endure just to test the chemicals and the products in makeup. On the other hand, it is necessary for this research to be done, in order to reach the point in the medical field as we are now.
When looking through magazines or even turning on the television it is hard to miss some of the fastest growing and most controversial issues-animal testing. From models such as Kate Moss refusing to wear fur, to other famous people such as Bill Maher also refusing, there has been a lot argued on this subject more recently then ever. Over the years there has been a growing controversy over the issue of animal testing. There has equally been groups that have developed through all of this outrage, groups of both supporters for animal testing, and those who are agaisnt animal testing. Both sides have come up with perfectly good reasons for their arguments, however, there is no sure way to choose who is right. Over the years, the scientists, the ones who for the most part support the animal testing, have argued that it is the only way for us to safely resaerch the drugs and chemicals that us humans put into our body. They argue that because animals have functions similar to humans, that it only makes sense to use the animals for testing. By looking at both sides very carefully, both for and agaisnt animal testing can one make their own opinion on what they feel is right and wrong.
Many will say that the use of animals for testing is both inhumane and should not be allowed as an effective way to test products such as cosmetics and laundry detergents for our homes. There are many reasons as to why the animal rights activists feel this way. For example, it is a proven fact that the animal testing that is done is very expensive, and a majority of the time they do not correlate the connection between the animals and human health. People like this believe that it is our duty to look out for god's creatures, not destroy them or hurt them on purpose. In the long run, animal tests have proven to not be effective for long term, low levels of exposure, which allows for the effects to show up later and they take longer, sometimes even decades to show up. How, then, can it be logical to put these animals through all of that pain and not be sure that the results are even going to be right? That is what the activists argue, and today the point is even be reconsidered by the scientists. IN addition, the animal testing does not provide some of the vital information that is needed when a consumer is buying a product, and is therefor not fulfilling the purpose of the testing. The products that are animal tested do not indicate in any way the products safety or danger that affects humans. These animals are going through a lot of suffering by going through with these tests, allowing for much un-needed pain to go through. It is argued by these activists that any of the expiraments using animals rehash what has already been proven. They believe that no matter what, the amount of animal research by any stretch, be regarded as necessary. These results have been proven many times over, and the reasons for doing it are always the same-and the results are the same.
However, the scientific community would argue much differently on this subject. On this subject, they are even backed up by the Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration is convinced that to some small degree the the testing of animals provides the ultimate reassurance that products ultimately applied to sensitive areas around the eyes will work. There are many good aspects that are developing through the animal testing. For example, the use of this animal testing is being used for the COX-2 inhibitors, and is speeding up the research that they are doing. With this, the testing is useful in prevention as well as the treatment of colon, skin and bladder cancer. One of the researchers in this study said "I think there is a great deal of promise with the COX-2 inhibitors based on the fact that there is a lot of epidemiological evidence and data from the animal studies suggesting these drugs can inhibit the development of tumors." Without the use of animals foe medical research researchers argue, we are saving human lives. This is because by using these animals we are creating medical breakthroughs that are allowing us to explore new drugs and create new cures for problems that arise on our lives. "Anybody who accepts the notion that disease is caused by a disturbance of anatomy or physiology is going to agree that animal research is necessary." Is what Adrian Morrison, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania school of Veternarians stated when asked about the need for animal research. "A careful reading of the historical record reveals that it's been absolutely indispensible for discovering and understanding basic biological processes."
The public interest in animal research did not begin to grow until the 1970's when consumers became aware of the scope of the animal testing. This is when they learned about the procedures and the horrifying circumstances that these animals had to endure just to test the chemicals and the products in makeup. On the other hand, it is necessary for this research to be done, in order to reach the point in the medical field as we are now.