Need to make an analytical essay.
TOPIC:- "Should anima

Question

Need to make an analytical essay.
TOPIC:- "Should animal testing be banned
worldwide?"

Sahil Sharma · Accepted Answer

The use of animals in product safety testing and research has long been a topic of discussion. Biomedical research and product safety testing account for more than 60% of all animal testing. People's attitudes towards animals vary; some view them as companions, while others use them as subjects for cutting-edge medical research and treatments (Balls,1992). Many activists from all over the world have made charges about how laboratories and cosmetic corporations abuse animals. The campaigners contend that any potential benefits to humans are not worth the agony, suffering, and deaths of these animals. And based on this justification, I come to the conclusion that animals shouldn't be employed in research or even to assess the safety of products.

The discussion examines the justifications for outlawing animal experimentation and the use of animals in research and product safety testing in favor of more humane alternatives. Exploring this subject is crucial to understanding the moral and ethical considerations that should be made when using animals for experimentation. The topic also looks into instances where animal rights have been disregarded when conducting experiments (Orlans, 1993). Last but not least, the subject lists alternatives to using animals for research and product safety testing. One side of the many opposing arguments is in favor of prohibition. The other party, on the other hand, rejects the ban on using animals in experimentation since it agrees that humans stand to gain much from these studies (Silcock, 1992).

The invention of numerous antibiotics, vaccinations, and hormones, among other advancements, were all made possible thanks in large part to animal experiments (Balls,1992). The use of animals in the research lab, for example, in evaluating toxicity and the effects of biological, nuclear, and chemical weapons, among other things, has explicitly led to the innovation of new surgical procedures and medical gadgets. Chemical laboratories and even government buildings engage in animal experimentation. Usually, it involves giving those animals chemical tests while also evaluating the effects of medications and other substances on them. I oppose using animals in scientific research because it restricts their freedom and exposes them to harm, suffering, and sometimes even death.

I believe that using animals in research and product safety testing should be prohibited and replaced with other methods. The experiments were incredibly successful, which is why there have been so many negative side effects described in the literature. Numerous medical professionals attribute various medicinal advancements to animal experiments (Balls,1992). Hence, I reject the validity of this argument. The experiment's use of animals is not taken into consideration. The necessity to stop using animals in medical research stems from the fact that blood transfusions and the blood types of animals and humans differ, creating incompatibility issues and the possibility that not all animal tests would be successful.

Instead of using animals to conduct research and assess the safety of items in the twenty-first century, technological innovation should be used (Silcock, 1992). Application of technology as a quick and effective means for doing research and as a safety precaution. Additionally, the best way to get accurate results from a human blood test is to use cutting-edge equipment. Therefore, using technology is a more cost-effective technique than using animals for these experiments, which may cause unnecessary pain or death (Orlans, 1993). For instance, animals are used in experiments with household cleaners, cosmetics, and other items that aren't even related to health. Animal fatalities during experiments to simulate murder in a human competition because animals have sensations much like people do. Therefore, in my opinion, using animals for testing is unethical and immoral, and animals shouldn't be forced to endure loneliness, suffering, or pain in a laboratory cage. Animal experimentation is definitely flawed science.

As an alternative to animal testing, the use of computer models, physiological simulations, and other technological techniques is growing. The reason for this is that there are studies claiming that the majority of drugs and foods tested on animals are either useless or useless when used on people. This side of the argument has maintained its stance that three guidelines—replacement, reduction, and refinement—must be adhered to if animals are going to be used in an experiment. The goal of refinement is to employ methods that reduce discomfort, suffering, and anguish (Silcock, 1992). While the reduction principle takes into account using fewer animals to maximize information, replacement argues for using alternative non-animal means. The use of emotive appeals conveys the anguish that lab animals who are subjected to chemical testing experience. Data analysis from human clinical trials, disease and therapy testing, and even the usage of experiments in virtual research may all be done using computer modeling.

According to the counterargument, those in the scientific community who favor animal testing do believe that people are superior to other living things, and this justifies the use of other creatures in animal experiments (Orlans, 1993). Although, it is important to reduce animal suffering. The advances in medicine made possible by animal testing are sufficient justification for continuing the practice in order to lessen human suffering and save human lives. The military defence’s use of animal experiments to model battle injuries and monitor responses to exposure to combat agents. Animal testing is therefore viewed as a crucial component of limiting or averting a full-scale crisis where competitors release chemical agents (Orlans, 1993).

However, this argument seems nonsensical simply because humans are thought to be able to give informed consent but animals are compelled to participate in tests against their will. Additionally, it raises ethical concerns because, in certain cases, animal testing involves pain, suffering, and discomfort. Even though researchers have taken steps to lessen the chance of discomfort wherever possible, they have not yet been able to completely eliminate it (Balls,1992). The researchers have reported employing anesthetic techniques where possible; however, some tests that call for painkillers may require interactions with the medicine being studied. And in light of these circumstances, there is a potential that such treatments will have an impact on animals. Those who oppose this practice view it as outrageous that cosmetics are tested on animals at the expense of bettering human life. For instance, Europe and Britain positioned their ban on animal testing for cosmetic items in 2009 (Balls,1992). However, some individuals accept animal research for medical reasons but oppose it for cosmetic ones, making the use of anesthetic components a crucial problem.

Despite looking at both sides of the debate over animal testing, I have decided that my viewpoint is neutral because there are no clear-cut rights or wrongs that appear to satisfy everyone. The idea that animal suffering should be minimized and that animals should be respected while in human care, on the other hand, seems to be a point of agreement. Therefore, if animal experimentation must continue—which it does at the moment—the animals must not be mistreated. The use of counterargument has improved my analysis by allowing me to focus not just on the reasons why using animals in testing is wrong but also on the benefits of using them to protect human lives. According to my analysis, the counterargument has also highlighted several advantages and disadvantages of animal experimentation; however, none appears to fully support the side that appeals to the majority of people. The ethics of using animals for research is a contentious issue that elicits strong feelings, opinions, and passion from both sides. The debate over whether to discontinue or continue animal testing could therefore be based on a variety of moral and ethical considerations.

Reference

Balls, M. (1992). "Time to Reform Toxic Tests." New Scientist 134:31-33.

Orlans, F. B. (1993). In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation. New York:

Oxford UP.

Silcock, S. (1992). "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" New Scientist 134: 32-34.

Need to make an analytical essay.

Get Instant Homework HelpOn Your Mobile

Get Instant Homework HelpOn Your Mobile

Get Instant Homework HelpOn Your Mobile