Cosmetic Testing on Animals
In 1983 the pharmaceutical company Pfizer carried out a special study to see if animal experiments could correctly identify cancer-causing chemicals. The results would be vitally important because despite costing millions of dollars, no one really knew whether the tests provided adequate protection against hazardous substances. Human findings were compared with experimental data from rats and mice for all chemicals known to cause cancer in people. The outcome was disturbing: in most cases animal tests had given the wrong answer. The report concluded that we would have been better off to toss a coin! The quarrel between those who would endow animals with “rights” and those who say that animals must be used if science is to move forward remains as heated as ever. Despite the widespread practice of harmful animal testing, there are numerous viable alternatives that prevent the unnecessary torture of innocent animals. Today, most people agree that causing unnecessary harm to an animal is wrong and our laws reflect that sentiment. Neglecting a pet by depriving it of food, water, or medical attention is a misdemeanor crime penalized by costly fines or in some cases jail time. Felonies include more sever fo
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Responsible Medicine, Institutes Health, Animal Testing, Welfare Act, Jacob Sivak, Royal SPCA, Drug Administration, James- Enger, American Canadian, Newark Jersey, animal testing, animal research, draize test, holmes 2, guinea pigs, animal 1, testing animals, animal protection, cosmetics toiletries, animals research, knowledge gained animal, research extended human, message 2 researchers, extended human life, animal research extended,
Approximate Word count = 3297
Approximate Pages = 13 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
 |
