Some people have suggested that using animals in experimentation is unethical since animals cannot "volunteer" to participate. They suggest humans have a moral obligation to be caretakers of our world and not subject animals to suffering. However, others contend that our superior status in the world confers upon us the right to utilize animals to advance our condition.Please react to the two articles on the use of animals in medical research. Do you support or oppose the use of animals in experimentation? Use evidence and please be specific in referencing the articles to support your position!
MAKE SURE YOU COME BACK AND READ COMMENTS BY YOUR CLASSMATES! ADDITIONAL RESPONSES TO OTHERS WILL GET YOU EXTRA CREDIT!
IN ADDITION, ENCOURAGE YOUR PARENTS TO VIEW THE BLOG AND INVITE THEM TO PARTICIPATE. PARENTAL PARTICIPTION WILL GET YOU EXTRA CREDIT, TOO.
BE SURE ALL COMMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE!
Please post response by Tuesday, February 9.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After reading the two articles on Animal Experiments and research, I now have mixed feeling about each of the two topics. I do believe though that Animal experiments should not be allowed to be preformed. Even though there can be much information that scientists can get out of experimenting with animals, it is not worth it. In most animal experiments there is usually some type of false information that follows with it. For instance, as the packet states, a healthy animal that experiences a sudden stroke does not undergo with slowly progressive arterial damage that usually plays a crucial role in human strokes. Many of these experiments that scientists preform on animals is just not the same as the results would show up as, if a human was being experimented on. Animal research is considerably a waste of time and money and it can also lead to the death or illness itself to the animals being tested on which is cruel to hurt any type of animal. Results can also become false because of the stress on the animals in the laboratories. In todays world there is much more known information to preform different studies, instead of preforming animal testing. In conclusion, animals most of the time provide a false conclusion in their results because most of the animals aren't exactly like the human bodies and the way we as humans fight off our infectious diseases.
ReplyDeleteThese two articles really made me think about how science treats animals in their research. However, If we dont study on animals (although some see it as cruel) what do you suggest we study on? Because of animal research, scientists have been able to make final necessary changes to medicines and such. If we dont test on animals, then a lot of the medicines and products we use today wouldnt even be in use. And if they were in use, side effects and allergy information could seriously injur human beings who use the medicines or products. On the other hand, I do feel for the people who believe that this is incredibly in-humane, but think about it...if it werent for animal research, we could be in a "world of hurt". Things we use every single day, wether you realize it or not, was most likely tested on animals. Where would we be, if it werent for these kind of tests.
ReplyDeleteNick
ReplyDeleteI think that it is cruel to experiment on animals but, I also believe that in order for human kind to advance we need to sacrifice different thing such as animals. As it says in the article ever since animal research many vaccines have been produced and many diseases have been cured and many infection rates have went down dramatically. This would have taken a lot longer because it is unethical to experiment on humans and the cultures did not have the same results as if the vaccine was tested in a living organism. So even though animal research is looked down upon by some people it most-likely has affected their life of someone they knows positively.
Over the many years this has been in question in my life, I found the most important way to look at it as if the animal was actually higher than humans on the foodchain, whether he or she would think twice about using humans as test subjects. Most of these animals would simply see us humans as a meal and a means of survival rather than an emotion-filled creature. Are those that are killed lost in the jungle given sympathy by the lion who attacks them? I think not. For this reason, I feel the "animals have feelings too" argument is not valid.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that I feel it is a necessary evil that always needs to be tested or used when other methods are readily available, nor am I seeking vengence for the animals' attitudes towards living. Some advancements in science do owe much of their credit to animal testing (Hib vaccine, hemolytic streptococci vaccine, heparin creation), but the results drawn from animal testing are not necessarily true or helpful. Some of these conclusions are misleading on the part of the drug companies, however this is simply a business marketing technique, which I understand perfectly.. man needs to make money to buy the things he needs to survive, and on top of that, some answers drawn from animal testing are better than not knowing at all. The truth is animal testing is a great way to find the answer to some problems in society today, and for this reason I support it. Without such testing, some people would certainly already be dead and doctors and scientists would not know nearly as much as they currnetly do today.
When I first started reading the articles I wasn’t really sure where I stood on the issue. Both articles had some strong points, but in the end I agreed mostly with the article “Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading”. It surprised me when it discussed how after animals were tested with tobacco smoke and did not get lung cancer people then thought it was ok to use tobacco products. This was one example of why we shouldn’t use animals. After reading this I learned how animals react differently that humans do to certain things. This mistake has caused for hundreds of humans to die over the years. The article “Animal Research is Vital to Medicine” shows that because of vaccines that were tested on animals some diseases were decreased by 70%. So even though testing on animals can sometimes be helpful, I don’t think it should be the only thing they mostly go on. There are no animals that react the same way we do 100% of the time. But after reading Nate’s blog I agree, if not animals, what will we test on? “Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading”, claims that there are other ways to experiment instead of on animals, but in the end even with all the flaws, animals work the best. That got me thinking, so in a way I think animal testing should be ok. As long as we can find a way to make sure people won’t suffer if the animal turns out to be not completely accurate and compatible with humans.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both articles, I still think it is inhumane to have scientific testing on animals. Who are we, as humans, to decide whether a member of another species will be used at our disposal? Would you want your pet to be subjected to this testing? I wouldn't. I do believe that animals "have feelings". They can form bonds and relationships just as we do, and it's not right to deny them that right. The article against animal testing made some great points, like how most animals and humans do not have the same effects with drugs. I agree with Brittany about the tobacco warnings. Because of animal testing, tobacco companies were able to delay warnings about the harmful effects of smoking, which in turn hurt our own species. There are other methods that don't have to hurt an innocent being in order to get great results. However, I do think that medical research is very important, and without animal testing, we may not have all of the vaccines and drugs we have today. But if laboratories were forced to work around the testing of live animals, I'm positive they would have found a way to come to the same conclusions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKyoko
ReplyDeleteAs much as I hate the idea of having to use animals in experimentation, I feel it is something that has helped and improved many human lives. Because of these sacrifices, many human lives have been saved. All the comments posted so far all have great arguments, and I agree with Nate; what would we perform experiments on? Human subjects would probably give the scientist the more accurate results but that idea is unthinkably immoral.
So I believe for now, animal experimentation is something that is needed in medical achievments.
Brittany's dad
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to deciding if animal research is necessary or a waste, I have to side with the continued use of animals in research. Arguably animal research has offered medicine a valuable platform in seeking treatments to aid mankind with a host of diseases and medical conditions. There is no doubt that the use of animal research has saved countless lives through the years as well as making the lives of others more tolerable. Without the continued use of animal research, we are severely limiting ourselves and needlessly exposing mankind to new and yet unknown diseases. I do agree to some extent with the other side of the argument that animal research is wasteful and cruel and not always the correct venue in finding new treatments. With this in mind, I feel guidelines for the use of animal research needs to be strengthened so that their use is conducted as humanely as possible. Though animal research is only one of a number of avenues that scientists can use, it is the largest and most effective way to find new medicines and treatments.
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteI received this e-mail from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) a while ago. Ms. Potvin (from period 5) kindly presented her view above concerning the animal rights groups (Thanks for your contribution!). I thought you might be interested in their view in their own words.
In NO WAY am I suggesting that you donate to or join PETA. This is strictly for those interested in the viewpoint of this organization.
Dear Friend,
As I write to you, countless dogs, cats, mice, rabbits, and other animals are suffering in outdated and unnecessary animal tests. This year alone, more than 100 million individual animals in North America will be killed in these cruel tests.
Since our founding nearly 30 years ago, PETA has made groundbreaking progress in our fight to stop all animal tests. With your help today, we can accomplish twice as much for those suffering behind the closed doors of laboratories. Thanks to a group of generous PETA donors, online donations received through our special "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge over the next month, up to a maximum of $250,000, will be matched dollar for dollar!
People of conscience have always opposed needless and cruel experiments on animals, but thanks to PETA's hard work and the dedication of our supporters, animal testing has been laid bare as junk science—of no benefit to anyone except the profiteers who make money from it.
When you give during the "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge, your donation will be worth twice as much to PETA and the animals we are working tirelessly to save.
By donating today to have your gift and impact doubled, you will help answer the cries of the millions of individual animals killed in North American laboratories every year, including the following animals:
Dogs who are poisoned by toxic pesticides.
Mice who are put in water chambers and forced to swim until they drown from exhaustion.
Rabbits who have chemicals poured into their eyes.
Pigs who are shot and burned by the U.S. Army for medical trainings.
Monkeys who have metal screws drilled into their skulls.
These experiments are not only cruel but also unreliable, dangerous, and bad science. We know that non-animal tests are less expensive and that they are better at protecting human health. The U.S. government's own scientific advisory board, the National Academy of Sciences, has concluded that many animal tests are useless and should largely be replaced by superior non-animal test methods. But even with that recommendation, animal testing continues, and animals whose minds and bodies are being shattered in laboratories desperately need our help.
PETA—and supporters like you—are often the only hope for these helpless animals. Our undercover investigations into vivisection facilities have exposed their horrors for public scrutiny. Our negotiations with corporations like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have spurred them to adopt cruelty-free policies and practices and compelled hundreds of others to give up animal testing forever. Our whistleblower program and our shareholder activism are also helping to hold corporate animal abusers accountable and save animals' lives.
But as long as any company, university, or government blinds, poisons, maims, tortures, and kills animals, our job isn't done. We urgently need your support to keep this fight going strong.
Please make a generous gift during this special online challenge today to help us permanently end the senseless abuse of animals in laboratories.
With your immediate help, we can save animals from cruel and painful deaths in laboratories.
Kind regards,
Ingrid E. Newkirk
President
P.S. There is no justification for another dog, cat, rabbit, monkey, pig, or other animal to suffer and die for pointless chemical, cosmetics, pesticide, or food-additive tests. With your help, PETA has the power to end these experiments. Please help us double our resources during this special "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge by making a generous gift today!
Davey
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two articles I was confused on which side to take first. The question is if these experiments are useful. If we have to run tests over and over to find out that they maybe can help the human body then it isn’t to useful because it isn’t fully correct. The other thing is that these tests have many false results which can cause pointless risks. As the article said, “These risks were defined as adverse reactions that could lead to hospitalization, disability or death.” Why would we want to use these studies to find out if we can hurt our own people and not even truly help humans? Even though we find some useful information that can help some diseases in humans, we don’t know if the medicine can trigger another disease, either one we know or even an unknown disease. These tests are too risky especially when most of these tests or experiments are found to be wrong or incorrect due to the differences in species. I think it is better to do human testing to find the exact cure or at least a cure to delay someone’s death. This helps because we would be using a human body type which is similar and we know exactly what humans are immune to. We find out what animals are immune to which most are different than humans but that doesn’t help because their body type is different and their function are different. Animals aren’t meant to be tested and then later on wasted; they are to be examined by the human eye as something different and extraordinary like their lifestyle and nothing else. For example, an animal goes into a human house and takes someone for an experiment. Although they aren’t as developed as us, we don’t have the right to disturb their environment and home like they wouldn’t do to us. I think these animal studies are wasteful and misleading and since these results aren’t 100% correct, then they shouldn’t risk human lives with false or incorrect info.
Peter Hoey, Sr
ReplyDeleteAfter reviewing both articles, I have determined that taking up one side (either for use involving animal research or against using animals in research) cannot be justified by either party. Use of animals in experiments has undeniably provided scientific advancement in the medical field as we know it. Future use of animals in research, for such things as nerve cell damage and nerve regeneration may lead to major medical advancements and increased scientific knowledge. However, the treatment of animals and/or the type of experiments animals are used for in research appears to have many areas of impropriety. Thus, use of animal research is often unjustified and downright cruel and inhumane. Basically, regulation is needed. A panel with pro and con animal research people together with primarily independent open minded group need to review when, how and if animal research should be used in experiments presented to this board. The only downfall here would be another form of government would need to be created to oversee such reviews. This in itself opens up to many lobbyists, but it may suppress the current ongoing arguments of whether animal research should or shouldn’t be used.
After reading both articles i feel that animal research is vital to medicine. If animals are not used many human lives could be lost and animals are the most related species to humans therefore it would make sense to use animals as a source to test for human cures. It would not makde sense to retrict research with animals becuse then other humans are basically depriving other humans the right to live. I feel humans don't have the right to decide who lives and dies. After animal experimentation has been used for open heart surgery, i honestly find it hard to believe that some people would still think it's wasteful and misleading. I mean i would rather have a human life saved than to lose them. Some animal insulin is also used to saved lives of human and those animals don't get killed, so it's not like the scientist just go in and take an animal and just use them for no reason. When those who believe snimal research is wasteful and misleading say that there are other ways to test, i really would like to know what some of those other ways are because i honestly don't know. Scientist also have to be able to do trial and error to figure out and understand what works and waht doesn't work, becuase it is the only way. And of course it would take a lot of time and money but so would any other alternative way. In a nutshell i feel that animal rseach is vital becuase animals are the most closely related to humans and there have been many experiments done that have saved the lives of many humans.
ReplyDeleteTalia Turco
ReplyDeleteFrom reading through my article on animal research, I found that my opinions have changed. At first, I didn't agree with allowing animals for testing but now that I have read through these articles I can say that allowing these animals could possibly be the answer to a beneficial idea, seeing that it can save lifes and be used in research for certain diseases. "Animal models are stated to be the best analogous to human conditions". Therefore, using animal in experiements are a crucial role in the development in medical treatment and will help put a stop to certain diseases. " Animal research not only produced new vaccines for the treatment of infectious disease, it also led to the development of antibacterial and antibiotic drugs". Without the testing of animals I beleive people could potentially be dead and researchers would obviously not know anything on development of the modern medical treatments that are available today.
Reading these articles has not changed my position on animal experimentation at all. I do not believe that experimenting on animals is right. These animals are living breathing creatures just like we are. Even though animal experimentation helps researchers to save lives, I do not think that the cost out weighs the benefits. Just because a certain treatment works on an animal, it doesn't mean that it will work on humans. Why hurt animals that way? It is cruel and inhumane to treat animals like scientific experiments. Hurting animals is not going to solve our problems. Animal experimentation is a big problem, and it is time that someone takes the time to review this issue. Animal testing is very misleading because some drug that may work for an animal isnt't necessarily going to work for a human. This cruel and inhumane practice needs to be reviewed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading and reviewing the two articles, my position on animal has not changed, however I have become more aware of the other half of the issue, and I now understand why people may feel as though it is unethical and inhumane. However, I am not one of those people and I feel as though it is a "necessary evil" so to speak, and I believe that it should continue to happen. I feel as though animal testing is necessary because without it, mankind will be at more harm than we already are. With testing on animals, we provide ourselves with alternatives to test the effects of medicine, and also comercial consumer products. This may be considered by some to be cruel, however without it, many of the trial and errors with vaccines would have had to tested on human beings and not little animals. In addition, as Darwin once said, it is survival of the fittest, do not think for one second that if the roles were reversed here and the animals being tested were the ones that had the choice of testing medicine on the inferior humans, they would not hesitate to put the lives of weaker beings on the line before their own. So before we go and say that it is cruel and inhumane, don't forget that if we switch roles here, they would test on us as well, because they want to survive and without the testing of animals, our advances in science and medicine wouldn't be as great as it is with the testing on the animals.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the articles, I believe its only right to say that testing animals is the only way to safely improve human lives. Without testing animals first, we are putting ourselves at a greater risk of harming ourselves. Plain in simple. Testing animals have helped us improve in many different area's of medication and science, an people don't think its necessary?.. that's crazy.
ReplyDeleteTJ period 1
ReplyDeleteI believe that they should use animals for testing, but to a certain extent though. i mean the animals also have feelings too but if we didnt test products on certain animals then how would we know that they work?
During our socratic seminar today some students said they would prefer using humans to experiment which i completely disagree with. A human life is much more precious than that of an animal. Some say that what gives us humans the right to take away an animal life but then what right would we as humans have to take away the life of another human. What i'm basically saying is that inorder for us to find out what works we have to test on animals (the species most related to humans)to get results. It's just all about trial and error and no matter how many animal lives are lost just to save one human life a human life is much much more precious than that of an animal.
ReplyDeleteTalia's Cousin
ReplyDeleteAnimals have been used throughout history for scientific research. In 1922, insulin was isolated from dogs and revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. In the 1970s, antibiotic treatments and vaccines for leprosy were developed using armadillos, then given to humans.
There is no doubt that animal research should be refined and reduced. However, to state that humans should be tested instead of animals is ludicrous.
Would any of us like to be the first to take a random drug that has not been tested on anyone or anything, without knowing its efficacy, side effects, etc?
Animal testing provides us with information about dosage, causes of disease, side effects, and more. It can be thought of a small sacrifice for a greater good- to cure and eradicate the devastating illnesses that are present. Animal research has provided us with anesthesia, antibiotics, vaccines, vitamins, and allergy treatments. Research involving animal models has also produced vaccines for animals against rabies, feline leukemia, and infectious hepatitis. In addition, CAT scans, MRIs, ultrasound, pacemakers, artificial joints and organ transplants are technologies common to human and veterinary medicine.
Steve.
ReplyDeleteSorry guys for posting so late, but as you knnow i was away. Our discussion we had in class wednesday was very interesting, and i was surprised with the amount of people that felt animal research is a waste. However, i feel tha is mandatory for mankind to progress in medicine and surgery. Amimal testing is also used to inform us about causes of diseases, its side effects, and testing to cure them. I wasnt able to listen in on the discussion thursday, but i know it must have been interesting with Zak and Mitch debating. I will be back in school tomorrow! see you guys then
I personally reside on a nutreul state. I feel as though we need animal testing for the purposes of expanding on medicines and treatments, on ways to save lives. However i feel as though we take advantage of this because we are higher on the food chain and use animals for things like cosmetics which we shouldnt because we are above them because it is morally wrong and we dont need to figure out new types of makeup to survive.
ReplyDeletealso like one thing we brought up in class was when we talked about the training of the monkeys to pilot planes while we released them to radiation to see how much they could handle but we continued to test and did it over and over while having results already.
this may be useful to know how much radiation that one could handle, but I think they went over board on the testing
I think that testing is necessary my main point is that if animals were the stronger species they would be experimenting on us. It is natural order and if testing on animals helps to advance the stronger species, eventually it will also benefit the smaller species. If we learn to cure diseases by texting animals people will live for longer and will be able to handle problems that effect the whole world. An example of a worldwide problem is pollution. This effects humans and animals, therefore if humans are able to live longer the longer we have to solve a problem that effects all.
ReplyDeleteAnimal Testing is necissary, plain and simple. We dont have enough people to run these sort of tests on human beings, and if we did, it would still be very unethical. it helps mankind solve all sorts of problems, and stop new ones from happening. So again, it is very useful and needed to have these tests.
ReplyDeleteI believe animal testing is neccisary, because i know for a fact more than half the people in the world would much rather see an animals life taken before thier own. I think sometimes experimenters do go over board on experimenting but overall it is neccisairy if not taken to an unnecisairy extent where as if its just killing and getting nothing out of it its pointless but if its completely neccisary then it must be done.
ReplyDelete