The differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous the harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, hiv, parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia. Testing a drug for side effects, for example, requires a circulatory system that will carry the drug to different organs studying interrelated processes is also best done in subjects with endocrine system, immune system, and central nervous system, something humans and animals have.

the differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing Opponents say the use of animals in experiments fails to generate knowledge that benefits human health this is simply false as refuted by medical history and simple common sense all living organisms share the same cellular building blocks, and the mechanisms these cells use to communicate with each other are largely shared across species.

Opponents believe that all types of animal testing are wrong and that the burden greatly outweighs the benefit proponents of vivisection believe that the extensive list of medical advances achieved through animal research justifies the practice. Home environment 16 integral pros and cons of animal experimentation 16 integral pros and cons of animal experimentation environment many proponents of animal experimentation claim that the process is for a good cause better to use animals than humans for testing, right protocols in animal testing are often painful to the test.

Opponents of animal testing contend that alternatives such as synthetic tissues and donated human blood make better experimental models than animals organizations such as the american humane society and johns hopkins university contend that the data produced by animal research is unreliable, at best, owing to fundamental physiological differences between humans and other animals. Over 25 million animals are used for experimentation in the us every year monkeys, rabbits, cats, ferrets, pigs, sheep and chimpanzees are just some of the animals used for biomedical experiments, science education, and product and cosmetics testing.

García 2 have made many proponents of animal testing, and even opponents, unhappy (rollin 135) proponents argue that animal testing is beneficial to humans and animals and to medical progress, while opponents argue that animal experimentation is cruel and immoral. While opponents are entitled to their own ethical position on the use of animals in research they are not entitled to their own set of facts the fact is that without animal research, our ability to develop new cures will largely come to a stop. Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.

The differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing

the differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing Opponents say the use of animals in experiments fails to generate knowledge that benefits human health this is simply false as refuted by medical history and simple common sense all living organisms share the same cellular building blocks, and the mechanisms these cells use to communicate with each other are largely shared across species.

Dr lawrence hansen, along with fewer than a dozen other anti-research activists from peta (people for the ethical treatment of animals), demonstrated at the society for neuroscience meeting in chicago his opinion piece reveals that they were protesting neuroscience experiments on animals that, they maintain, will never benefit human health. The american public accepts the humane use of animals in experiments and testing, but they would not accept the “torture of animals” in experiments and testing just as civilized society has said that torture of humans cannot be tolerated regardless of the possible information to be gleaned, animals should not be tortured regardless of the possible information to be gleaned.

  • Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of numerous life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
  • Proponents of continued animal experimentation often also point out that progress can still be made to improve the conditions of laboratory animals and they fully support efforts to improve living conditions in laboratories, to use anesthesia appropriately, and to require trained personnel to handle animals.

A ban of animal tests in the production of cosmetics will jeopardizethe opponents call animal-testing ban harmful to humans owings and supporters of his bills told members of the house. Proponents argue that animal testing is beneficial to humans and animals and to medical progress, while opponents argue that animal experimentation is cruel and immoral in response to these discussions, laws have been passed in response to these discussions, including the animal welfare act.

the differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing Opponents say the use of animals in experiments fails to generate knowledge that benefits human health this is simply false as refuted by medical history and simple common sense all living organisms share the same cellular building blocks, and the mechanisms these cells use to communicate with each other are largely shared across species. the differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing Opponents say the use of animals in experiments fails to generate knowledge that benefits human health this is simply false as refuted by medical history and simple common sense all living organisms share the same cellular building blocks, and the mechanisms these cells use to communicate with each other are largely shared across species. the differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing Opponents say the use of animals in experiments fails to generate knowledge that benefits human health this is simply false as refuted by medical history and simple common sense all living organisms share the same cellular building blocks, and the mechanisms these cells use to communicate with each other are largely shared across species.
The differing arguments between the opponents and proponents of animal testing
Rated 5/5 based on 10 review
Download

2018.