Prevention of cruelty to animals became an important movement in early 19th Century England, where it grew alongside the humanitarian current that advanced human rights, including the anti-slavery movement and later the movement for woman suffrage. The first anti-cruelty bill, intended to stop bull-baiting, was introduced in Parliament in In Colonel Richard Martin succeeded in passing an act in the House of Commons preventing cruelty to such larger domestic animals as horses and cattle; two years later he organized the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals SPCA to help enforce the law. Queen Victoria commanded the addition of the prefix "Royal" to the Society in
Jeffrey and Lonette Stayton Awards for Writing Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research.
However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all across the country and all around the world. Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits.
Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic by the PETA Organization PETA, This is an article written by one of the most passionate and reliable sources of. animal testing animals used for experimentation the issues peta - Free download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. Sep 07, · Now, a better understanding of animals' capacity for pain and suffering is prompting many to take a closer look at the human use of animals. Articles in the accompanying Collection only briefly touch on the many scientific and ethical issues surrounding the .
Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of products. First, animals' rights are violated when they are used in research. This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment" qtd. Animals and people are alike in many ways; they both feel, think, behave, and experience pain.
Thus, animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. Yet animals' rights are violated when they are used in research because they are not given a choice. Animals are subjected to tests that are often painful or cause permanent damage or death, and they are never given the option of not participating in the experiment.
Regan further says, for example, that "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed.
Risks are not morally transferable to those who do not choose to take them" qtd. Animals do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the advancement of human welfare and new technology. Their decisions are made for them because they cannot vocalize their own preferences and choices.
When humans decide the fate of animals in research environments, the animals' rights are taken away without any thought of their well-being or the quality of their lives. Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of animals.
Next, the pain and suffering that experimental animals are subject to is not worth any possible benefits to humans. Animals feel pain in many of the same ways that humans do; in fact, their reactions to pain are virtually identical both humans and animals scream, for example. When animals are used for product toxicity testing or laboratory research, they are subjected to painful and frequently deadly experiments.
Two of the most commonly used toxicity tests are the Draize test and the LD50 test, both of which are infamous for the intense pain and suffering they inflect upon experimental animals.
In the Draize test the substance or product being tested is placed in the eyes of an animal generally a rabbit is used for this test ; then the animal is monitored for damage to the cornea and other tissues in and near the eye.
This test is intensely painful for the animal, and blindness, scarring, and death are generally the end results. The Draize test has been criticized for being unreliable and a needless waste of animal life. The LD50 test is used to test the dosage of a substance that is necessary to cause death in fifty percent of the animal subjects within a certain amount of time.
To perform this test, the researchers hook the animals up to tubes that pump huge amounts of the test product into their stomachs until they die. This test is extremely painful to the animals because death can take days or even weeks.
According to Orlans, the animals suffer from "vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, convulsion, and internal bleeding. Since death is the required endpoint, dying animals are not put out of their misery by euthanasia" The precision it purports to provide is an illusion because of uncontrollable biological variables" The use of the Draize test and the LD50 test to examine product toxicity has decreased over the past few years, but these tests have not been eliminated completely.
Thus, because animals are subjected to agonizing pain, suffering and death when they are used in laboratory and cosmetics testing, animal research must be stopped to prevent more waste of animal life.
Finally, the testing of products on animals is completely unnecessary because viable alternatives are available. Many cosmetic companies, for example, have sought better ways to test their products without the use of animal subjects.
In Against Animal Testing, a pamphlet published by The Body Shop, a well-known cosmetics and bath-product company based in London, the development of products that "use natural ingredients, like bananas and Basil nut oil, as well as others with a long history of safe human usage" is advocated instead of testing on animals 3.
Furthermore, the Draize test has become practically obsolete because of the development of a synthetic cellular tissue that closely resembles human skin. Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial "skin" instead of testing on animals.
Another alternative to this test is a product called Eyetex. This synthetic material turns opaque when a product damages it, closely resembling the way that a real eye reacts to harmful substances. Computers have also been used to simulate and estimate the potential damage that a product or chemical can cause, and human tissues and cells have been used to examine the effects of harmful substances.
In another method, in vitro testing, cellular tests are done inside a test tube. All of these tests have been proven to be useful and reliable alternatives to testing products on live animals.In a huge victory for animals, the European Union (EU), Israel, and India have banned the sale of any cosmetics or cosmetics ingredients that have been tested on animals.
Sep 07, · Now, a better understanding of animals' capacity for pain and suffering is prompting many to take a closer look at the human use of animals.
Articles in the accompanying Collection only briefly touch on the many scientific and ethical issues surrounding the .
Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic Every year, millions of animals are poisoned and killed in barbaric and outdated tests that attempt to evaluate the hazards of consumer products and their ingredients.
Animal Testing Should NOT Be Banned.
Highlights: “Animal testing in which there is consent, or in which the procedure is beneficial to the patient, is morally acceptable and should not be banned.
You might wonder how an animal who doesn’t speak can consent to research. Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic.
The substances are administered to the animals for up to two years before they are killed so that researchers can look for signs of cancer, such as abnormal cells or tumor formation. PETA works with regulatory agencies to promote the development and acceptance of non-animal testing methods.
In The European Union introduced a ban on the testing of finished cosmetic products (shampoo, make-up, toothpaste, etc.) on animals in Five years later, it also ended the testing of ingredients, following this up with a ban on the import and sale of new cosmetics tested on animals abroad, in