animal testing
The theme song to a popular cartoon Pinky and the Brain is a farce dealing with experiments carried out on animals. In the cartoon one mouse is made very smart and wants to take over the world while the other is clearly not as smart. While the cartoon makes jokes, the reality is mice and other animals are being used for medical tests every day. For some people this testing brings up ethical questions. The major problem with animal experimentation and the question most often brought up in this debate asks, is it really necessary to take the lives of animals in the name of science and for the betterment of humanity? The answer is yes. Although society can sympathize with animal right activist beliefs that animal testing is no longer needed due to the alternative now available, those alternatives at times lack the technology to be an effective substitute. Since there is no certain substitute for animal testing, it is clear that animal experimentation is needed. However, to satisfy animal right activists I propose animal research be used only when it absolutely necessary, when no other effective alternatives are available.
However, in defense of animal rights activists, some experimentation is truly unnecessary. There is a true problem with our current animal experimentation legislation. There are hundreds of experiments which are unnecessarily redone and which have exposed animals to unnecessary cruelty. Due to uncalled experimentation, my proposal of new legislation will protect animals from any unnecessary use in experiments, as well as, stopping any preventable suffering of these animals. Furthermore, I still believe that animal experimentation is essential to today's society. PETA's position as honorable as it is appears is far too extreme. Simply disposing of animal testing entirely would eliminate many medical advances for both humans, and animals. Therefore, the legislation I propose will allow animal experimentation to continue, strengthen the laws already in place in turn reducing animal cruelty to further satisfy PETA and all other animal rights activists. Simply put, lab animals are a cheap, reliable source of information. They do not need to be paid and the results gained from testing are more reliable than any other reasonable substitute. To counter the position, animal testing as economical, activists site the use of humans in testing experimental drugs. The problem with this statement is first the situation with too many variables. The second problem deals with side effects given by theses experimental drugs. Through animal testing a researcher can discover many side effects without harming human beings. Animal testing protects humans from further damage caused by experimental drugs. The next problem PETA sees in animal experimentation is that the benefits of animal research not outweighing the costs when alternatives are available. However, those alternatives are not effective. PETA's stance is that animal life is too valuable to risk on experimentation, especially when there are alternatives, such as false human skin grown in culture, computer programs, and using human subjects.
Some common words found in the essay are:
Botting Morrison, Skin Culturing, Agriculture USDA, PETA HSUS, Essentially PETA, Pinky Brain, AIDS Canedy, Animals PETA, MD Animal, animal testing, United HSUS, animal experimentation, animal research, animal rights, human subjects, animal rights activists, skin cultures, rights activists, animal experiments, animals humans, computer simulation, medical advances humans, advances humans animals, animal experimentation essential, gained animal testing,
Approximate Word count = 2582
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
