Research Argument-dunkindonuts10

Say No to Animal Testing

P1. Unwillingly animals put their lives on the line for us humans, but shouldn’t we be the ones protecting them? When it comes to research for medicine, researchers have found the need to use animals to be the key in order to find out how the chemicals would affect humans. Now, when it comes to medical research, laboratory animals have been getting harder and harder to get. Many animal rights activists are finding ways in order to decrease the number of animals being harmed. It seems counterintuitive that medicine is being created to help humans but at the same time harming animals in the process. There could be another way to find out the results of medicine rather than testing these harmful toxins on innocent animals. Few have said if they knew a certain type of medicine was injected into an animal they would not have gone through with the injection. On the other hand, people look back and are glad the medicines have gone to such an extent because without these findings, they would not have been alive for many more years. No matter what, there are easier and quicker methods for testing without harming any animals or humans in the process.

P2. When medicine is being created, researchers go right to animals in order to see the potential effects it has on us humans. It hurts to think researchers able to purposely put innocent animals through pain knowing there is no happy ending for them. Even though this results in someone else’s benefit, it only hurts the other. Animals are left suffering in pain for us. The effects of these tests result in many problems for the animals later on. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, has shared because of these tests, “monkeys are becoming addicted to drugs, cats are deafened and have holes drilled into their skulls, sheep and pigs have their skin burned off, and rats have their spinal cords crushed.” None of this is, or sounds, ethical and animals should not be looked at as this type of resource. These researchers do not see the bigger picture when it comes to the animals lives. Animals are not put on this planet for the accessibility of medical research.

P3. A laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland called Institute for Behavioral Research was locked down with a warrant and were found to have many monkeys left in bad shape. Most of them had many open wounds, malnutrition, no fur and left in anger and misery. Their ability to move was slim to none and were left with nothing but being vulnerable. This group of people forced the monkeys in a “dark, blood-spattered refrigerator and a jerry-rigged restraint chair, tying them down with duct tape and burning them with a cigarette lighter, squeezing their flesh” only to have their limbs tested. They were left with nothing but pain.

P4. Yes, most tests performed on specific animals will show parallel results to humans but PETA stated “there’s no guarantee that drugs are safe just because they’ve been tested on animals.” If there is no definite answer to how it affects humans directly, why do researchers continue to use them? There is no better reasoning to stop animal testing than hearing “alternative scientific tests are often more reliable than animal tests,” directly from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Right then and there, doctors should rely on tests that do not use animals, giving their patients the best possible treatment they can get. Countless tests showed human skin cells compared to traditional animal tests to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin. The simplest change of not using animals could make the biggest difference in somebody’s life.

P5. Ray and Jean Greek cofounders of Americans for Medical Advancement reveal “Medical advances are responsible for Americans living longer and better lives.” Without the science of medicine, lives would be completely different today. This organization discusses how using animals for experimentation did not make a difference in the surgical field. Yet, researchers will still argue animals are invaluable to science no matter how ridiculous the experiments are. While using animal testing, 198 medications were put on shelves, until 102 of them had to be taken down because of the wrongful founding’s that would be in humans and not animals. Another example of animal experimentation going wrong is when chemicals tested for cancer showed nineteen out of twenty positive for animals and zero out of twenty for humans, leaving researchers with no correlation between the two. This simply means the bodies between animals and humans are clearly not the same.

P6. It would be more appealing, especially as a patient, knowing the medicine that is put into my body is found to be from a more reliable source. The risk of knowing if a treatment will or will not work on a disease only gets the hopes up of the fighting people in need. When researchers use animals for testing, they are able to prove a safe solution for animals, but not necessarily for humans. The small percentage that this could happen could make a huge difference. According to Meredith Cohn, reporter from The Baltimore Sun, physicians still see the “basic research and drug and chemical tests still rely heavily on animals.” That should not be the case, the bigger and more important tests are even starting to move to non-animal testing. More researchers are finding a way to “incorporate human-based needs” however, “there is no comprehensive substitute for animal testing and research.” Everyone, even the doctors, are aware of how harmful testing is to animals, yet no one has put enough effort in to stop it. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals declared these experiments are “cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans”, so a handful of scientists have finally stepped forward to find a different method. They are in the process of ending animal testing and finding tests that are “relevant to human health”. These upcoming tests with include newer technology, human cells and tissues, and even human volunteers to give the best possible reaction. Not only will it enhance the medicine for human diseases, but it is a method that is much cheaper and easier to perform.

P6. There has always been insignificant alternative testing that has not been used, yet there are many benefits if they were used. The organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society, NEAVS, expresses when no animals are used for experimenting its creates “cruelty-free products” and makes the world “more environmentally friendly.” This could increase consumers’ willingness to buy more products if they knew it was not included in animal testing. NEAVS also argues by using non-animal testing it is “more cost-effective and practical”, leaving there no question not to use animals. Researchers would be able to fix two major variables, with one minor adjustment, making their lives much easier. While animal testing takes weeks to perform and record substantial information, other tests take “as little as 3 minutes to four hours.” NEAVS has found by experimenting chemicals without animals, researchers can “test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost.” Since then, there has yet to be any red flags from non-animal testing.

P7. Although nothing is put into action, there are alternative methods available. Lately, there has been growing news of another way to find out the results of medicine rather than testing these harmful toxins on innocent animals. Since these methods have been found helpful, this should be more popular than using animals yet it is not. The methods not including animals have been found to be much quicker, easier, and cheaper. In order to get these tests done more efficiently, humane research would be conducted using “studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients.” Animal research is “well-funded” which is a contributing factor to why they are still continuing present day. If other tactics for medical research was available along with funding, those would be increasing instead.

P8. Backing away from animal testing, there are four available up and coming non-animal testing methods becoming known. These alternative testing’s have nothing bad going for them and can only prevent the poor treatment of animals.

P9. To start off, there is “In Vitro” testing. Where Harvard’s Wyss Institute has developed, a technique called “organs-on-chips” which has human’s cells grown in the system in order to double as the function of human organs. PETA shares that this method has been shown to “replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses” more accurately than animal testing. This chip has already been bought by researchers and used instead of animal experimentation. Also, there is a new cell-based and tissue model test that has been introduced to test the reliability of “drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products.” By using human cells replicating the traits of human skin, this method gets rid of testing for guinea pigs, mice, and rabbits.  These animals would not have to be shaved down and put in painful tests waiting for the results of the test normally. Instead, using this duplicate skin researchers are able to evaluate from that source rather than anything else. At the European Union Reference Library, researchers have found tests that the use of human blood instead of putting rabbits through this painful test is quite more successful. The blood is used to identify any red flags that would pollute the human body and result in fevers when it accesses the body. In the end, it gives the result of anything that would be harmful directly from a human source.

P10. In the technological field, there have been few advanced systems created in order to deal with the human body. For example, animal testing and drug tests can soon be taken over by this computer-generated testing. Researchers have computer models that mimics the human biology and the growth of diseases within. This method will be able to find new ways and new drugs to help the human body react to any illness. Quantitative structure-activity relationships, QSARs, is a computer based system that will get rid of animal testing by using the known knowledge of human biology. This way will avoid animal experiments involving chemicals and any other harmful tests. This way is much quicker and definitely much simpler.

P11. Human volunteers have also come forward to help not just themselves, but everybody else. Micro dosing is a technique that gives volunteers a “small one-time dose” which allows researchers to observe the body. The drug will be watched in order to see how it affects the body making this method able to banish certain animal testing’s all at once. Using this method gives information letting researchers know the safeness of a drug and how it will react to a human in the long-run. Rats, cats, and monkeys will not have to have their brains damaged any longer thanks to the advanced brain imaging and recording approach. This method allows humans to have their brains studied by researchers and even temporarily solve their condition.

P12. When it comes to chemical testing, human tissue is proven to give more accurate results than using animals. A researcher’s job is to find the best possible answer to the problem they are presented with, meanwhile non-animal testing is producing the results they need. Since this method could leave a patient potentially dead or alive, researchers should take the opportunity to participate in such a method. Doctors are finally able to realize animal testing is not doing their job and that they need to find a new solution. The former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni expresses, “We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” This is the first step in the right direction in order to cease animal testing.

P13. In the effort to teach not only medical students, but save people lives, there has been a human-patient simulator. What is better than learning how to react with problems from the human body by using a human body? Life-like computerized human-patient simulators have been constructed in order to teach students the most accurate way to treat a patient. This excludes any animals, such as pigs, goats, or dogs, to be cut up. The simulator breathes, bleeds, talks, and reacts just as a normal human would. Medicines will be injected and act as if it was on a real-life person, allowing students to learn lifesaving skills on the spot. No animals will be touched or need to even be present in order for any of these new methods to take place.

P14. Having said that, when it comes to finding another method of finding cures, there is nothing that would be able to replace all the animals in research. Yes, even though there are other procedures available to not harm animals, there is a positive to using them. The bodies of mice, rats, fish and birds have all been found with similar a similar body system as humans. Because of that, animals are just as susceptible to diseases as humans are, allowing researchers to find the cure on them just as easy.

P15. On the other hand, without knowing or hearing of these effective methods, researchers will not move away from their comfortable setting of animal testing. Scientists are aware “animals are necessary to medical research when it is impractical or unethical to use humans.” The American Physiological Society, APS, states animals are “susceptible to many of the same health problems, and they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations.”. This does not change the long-time, damaging effects animals are left with. They are aware of the toxic lifestyle they are bringing the animals into, but believe it is easier to work with them than humans because they can “easily control the environment”. It is said, the main reason animals are used intentionally is because it would be wrong to expose humans to a health-risk when they are trying to track the disease in the first place. Once the animals are tested and are able to show the medicine reacts good, it will then be injected into a human volunteer so further-prove the tests. The APS talks about how animal testings are performed first in order to “give medical researchers a better idea of what benefits and complications they are likely to see in humans.” Yet, it has been proven animals do not necessarily need to be used in order to see the outcome of a certain medicine. There are ways to avoid using animals as resources, but researchers are able to control the conditions with animals, rather than humans. Once the tests are proven to work, they are then brought to volunteers and given the drugs as well. Scientists cannot risk giving humans medicine for a disease they have without knowing the consequences. On the other hand, they are aware of the same damages animals are introduced too, yet still decide to use them.

P16. The only reason people continue to use animal testing for medical research is simply because they make money from it. The Greeks stress, “Animal experimentation does not continue because of the great medical strides that are falsely attributed to it.” There is simply no other logic to continue harming animals if it were not for money. With quicker and easier alternative methods, available: vitro testing, human tissue, and technological advances, the funding should be put to that instead.

P17. When it comes to chemical testing, human tissue is proven to give more accurate results than using animals. A researcher’s job is to find the best possible answer to the problem they are presented with, meanwhile non-animal testing is producing the results they need. Since this method could leave a patient potentially dead or alive, researchers should take the opportunity to participate in such a method. Doctors are finally able to realize animal testing is not doing their job and that they need to find a new solution. The former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni expresses, “We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” This is the first step in the right direction in order to cease animal testing.

P18. Although not all researchers see eye to eye, using animals for chemical testing is not illegal, but it certainly is not ethical. The law not to test on animals when there are better and easier alternatives available should be stressed immensely. According to NEAVS, three states have “already passed legislation mandating that federally approved non-animal alternatives, when available, be used for product testing in place of animals.” This will gradually lead to “cruelty-free research and testing” to be the “status quo.” NEAVS strongly believes since science “promotes better health and well-being”, they can do the same to “protect animals lives.”

P19. All in all, there are numerous outcomes from non-animal testing. Not only are animals free from being in agonizing pain, but there is a better chance humans can live through a disease. Non-animal testing is growing but until it is completely vanished, animals are out there being harmed for no reason and giving possible false results for the ones in need. Thanks to the non-profit organization New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the public is able to see “Science finally moving forward to realize the premise that the best test species for humans are humans without harm and with enormous benefit to humans.” There is no reason not to be involved in this type of testing when it can only help for the better.

Works Cited

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. N.p., 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

“Animals in Medical Experiments.” N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2017

Cohn, Meredith. “Study Aims to Check If Other Methods Can Replace Animal Testing.” Baltimore Sun Media Group, 12 Mar. 2017. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. “Animal Testing Is Not Essential for Medical Research.” Animal Experimentation, edited by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004

“If We Don’t Use Animals, Wouldn’t We Have to Test New Drugs on People?”
N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2017.

Newkirk, Ingrid. “Animal Testing Is Cruel and Does Not Benefit Medical Research.” Animal Experimentation, edited by Cindy Mur, Greenhaven Press, 2004

Society, New England Anti-Vivisection. “Animals in Science /….”
Animals in Research and Testing. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2017.

Society, New England Anti-Vivisection. “Alternatives to Animals in Science.” In Testing. NEAVS, n.d. Web. 27 Mar. 2017.

“Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?” American Physiological Society Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research? N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2017.

This entry was posted in 123 Archive. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Research Argument-dunkindonuts10

  1. davidbdale says:

    Dunkin, you do an excellent job of appealing to your readers’ sense of decency. You lay out and repeat often the simple reasoning that if accurate and affordable alternatives to animal testing exist, they would obviously be the more humane choice.

    The primary weakness of your paper is that it relies for its evidence almost entirely on the conclusions of advocacy agencies, PETA and the New England Anti-Vivisection Society. Such organizations, like any that have a social or political agenda to promote, don’t pass along the factual data of studies; instead, they draw the conclusions that suit their promotional needs and present them as established science. The summaries of studies that appear on their websites are valuable for motivating action among believers of the cause, but they’re not persuasive to objective readers looking for evidence.

    A paragraph from the American Physiological Society (a source you have cited) tells a story, also in summary, that we can’t ignore:

    But the body’s organs and systems interact in sophisticated ways. These biological and chemical processes cannot be understood fully by looking at simple organisms or isolated molecules or cells. Cause and effect relationships discovered within cells or between molecules may operate quite differently when the same process is studied in an intact organism. That is why it is important to study whole animals including humans as well as isolated molecules and cells.

    We have a choice to make as a culture. Once we use cells and simulations to determine that a drug appears promising and not immediately lethal, what animal do we test it on to see how it affects the complete organism? If we simply make it available to humans for general consumption, the results could be completely catastrophic, and no pharmaceutical company could afford the liability risk. That leaves trials on humans or trials on other animals.

    You could make a very significant improvement to your argument by working your way back from the advocacy websites to the actual scientific studies they rely on for their conclusions. It wouldn’t be easy, I know. They don’t provide good sources. But it’s not wise, for example, to offer a paragraph as controversial as your P11, with the highly unlikely promises it offers, without providing an original source for your claims. We’d like to trust you because the idea you propose is so appealing, but we don’t know where Dunkindonuts got the evidence.

    Solving that fundamental problem would be worth a full grade at least. In the meantime, you need to make at least a dozen smaller punctuation corrections, all the same type. Periods and commas go INSIDE the quotation marks. ALWAYS. Here’s just one example:

    WRONG: they’ve been tested on animals”.
    RIGHT: they’ve been tested on animals.”

  2. dunkindonuts10 says:

    I have found 2 extra and more reliable outside sources from the Rowan library website where I cited and included their claims (P2, P5, P16). I found new, but not a lot, information while reading these sources and I added more examples of the bad effects of animal testing, I hope it will help my grade.

  3. davidbdale says:

    Your changes are significant, Dunkin.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s