(Cover Story)." Drug Discovery & Development 13.4 (2010): 10-13.
Does it remain as unavoidable or can society move past animal testing and find new ways to test products and medicines? 'The Conflict Over Animal Experimentation: Is The Field Of Battle Changing?
Law and Animal Experimentation: A Critical Primer'.
In this paper, I will present both sides of the argument and……
Ultimately, when the benefits and harms of using animals for testing purposes, it is evident that animals should not be used for experiments.
on animal testing I have come to realize my personal view has now changed since the start of my research.
Before undergoing heavy study into animal testing I believed that all types of animal testing should be stopped, but now I believe that the idea is very beneficial and should only be done when the rights of the animal are considered.However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) gives details of the harsh chemical research for the cosmetics used by vain consumers.Understand that bug repellent should undergo a toxicological test to protect humans from malaria carried by mosquitoes, while the American woman uses 12 beauty products a day that are also tested on animals, which are often put through traumatizing events and lethal doses of toxic chemicals.Animal testing has been around since at least 500 BC and in the last 100 years most medical breakthroughs regarding treatments and life-saving cures to ailments have resulted from research using animals, according to the California Biomedical Research Association.The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, states it’s unethical to test on human volunteers unnecessarily before first testing on animals. [Online website] Available at on: 25/09/2005] Peter Tatchell - Article Title: Why Animal Research Is Bad Science: The Government Is Wrong to Support Vivisection -- And Not Only Because of the Suffering Caused to Non-Human Creatures. The term "vivisection" is now used as a blanket term for all animal experiments, although it originally only referred to those that involved cutting the animals (Wikipedia, 2005) Many dictionaries and encyclopedias now use the term "vivisection" to describe any type of animal experiment that causes suffering, whether it involves cutting or not, although those animal experimentors dislike this trend as they feel that "vivisection" is a term that spurs emotion (Croce, 1991). [Read More] References Croce M., (1991) Pietro, Vivisection or Science - a choice to make BETA Tipografica s. [Online website] Available at Testing101.asp[Accessed on: 25/09/2005] Karen Lee Stevens - Animal Testing Alternatives. Notice, however, the animals used in testing, rodents, birds and fish, aren’t protected by the AWA. In the scientific case studies toward medical research and disease prevention, such as polio, rabies, brain cancer, the animals are not being treated inhumanely, as information from the Humane Society and PETA states.Any animal that is under duress would provide unreliable results thus ruining the overall research, as stated in Nature Genetics.Although animal testing has ceased in some cosmetic companies and label their goods as not animal tested, most companies, especially pharmaceutical companies, rely on animals to test drugs and vaccines in order to promote evolution of medicine but refrain from putting human lives at risk. This essay will show the pro and con sides of animal testing/animal experimentation.