Animal testing is inhuman and should be banned

Introduction

During the last decades of bio-medical research development, millions of animals were used each year for testing the safety and effect of drugs and medicines before the medical clinic trial on human beings. This blog aims to argu four main points about animal testing. First of all, some groups and organisations argued about the effectiveness of animal testing and against killing of these animals. 

Secondly, they also pointed out that there were many more advanced methods to analyse the drug effectiveness, such as cell culturing, computer stimulation and so on. The third argument is that however, a majority of people who worked in the bio-medical field approved animal experiments and they believed that animal testing brought lots of benefits for human health and there was no reason to stop it. 

Next, from the perspective of ethics, animal testing should be gradually replaced and avoided in most medical research cases. The pros and cons of animal experiments will be described and discussed. 

In most cases the result from animal testing is not effective and accurate when it is applied on human beings

Testing on animals was not effective and applicable because of four reasons (Akhtar, 2013). Firstly, People might have rich experience in treating diabetes in animals, but people did not totally understand diabetes in human. Animal testing was not reliable for research on human health and disease. Moreover, animal models usually resulted in wrong research outcomes. Next, it was still not able to exactly recreate human disease in animal testing. Thus, artificially created disease on animals was meaningless to medical research. Thirdly, it was very hard for animal testing researchers to achieve more because it was difficult to mimic and develop similar underlying conditions and disease for animals.

 Finally, animals’ experiments were in fact misdirecting people to discover the true causes of human disease. To conclude, there were other ways to understand human systems and it was necessary to avoid animal testing, which leaded to unreliable results.

Alternative ways can replace testing and research on animals. 

Animal testing was replaceable asalternatives were applicable and effective, such as cell engineering, computerstimulation and etc (Buzzle, 2011). Research on animals should be replaced because of three reasons. First of all, it was crucial to find out more methods to avoid pain and death in animal experiments. In other words, based on safety, testing on human beings was more important and meaningful. Second, for animals, they equally had rights just like human beings. 

People needed to respect and protect them. Third, animal cruelty was a vital issue however people should take the responsibility and maintain the balance of the Eco-system instead of taking advantage of them for self-benefit. People could not break the minimum level of Eco-system, or catastrophic impact would be caused.

Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade.

Prohibiting animal testing for medical application was hardly achieved due to its fourcrucial roles in medical progress (Foundation for bio-medical research, n.d.). Firstly, research on animals was of great importance to improve medical treatments for both human and animal health. Second, scientists agreed that animal’s physical systems made huge contribution to human’s systems. Worldwide medical field also supported that animal research was important and necessary. Third, animal testing also conducted as effective treatments to save or extend their own life. Animal subjects were essential for medical research and therefore we must provide them with particular care and concern. 

Finally, people who were involved in medical science and knew the importance for treating disease had no doubt about animal experiments. In conclusion, animal testing could not be banned.

Millions Of animals suffer and die as a result of drug research.

There were millions of animals suffer and die in forbidding chemical every year, including drug, food and cosmetics tests and also in biology classes, medical training's, and medical experiments at universities (PETA, n.d.). However, some tests were not even necessary and they provided misleading results. Although a product harmed animals, it might still be released to the market. 

These tests were conducted regularly in the United States. The United States government wasted funds on the misleading tests instead of spending them on the experiments that related to humans. Animal testing should be stopped and alternative approaches should be educated to the agencies that conducted experiments on animals. 

Conclusion

 The essay summarized two pros and two cons of animal testing. Animal subjects have been played a key role in the medical research, although there were arguments about whether using animals as research subjects was the effective way to produce clinical results. Medical experiments on animals improved human health. However, the studies suggested that animal testing was replaceable by alternatives. In conclusion, there was still a lot of uncertainty regarding to how the medical research could be conducted to avoid negative impact on the testing subjects.

References

Akhtar, A. (2013, August 27). Why animal experimentation doesn't work -- reason 2: animals don't get human diseases. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from The Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/animal-testing-diseases_b_3813856.html

Buzzle. (2011, September 28). Alternatives to animal testing. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from Buzzle: 
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html

PETA. (n.d.). Animal testing 101. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from People for the ethical treatment of animals:
 http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/ 

Foundation for biomedical research. (n.d.). Research policy statment. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from Foundation for biomedical research:
http://fbresearch.org/about-fbr/research-policy-statements/

                                                                                                   
                                                                                              written by Yuli zhang

Yuli Zhang Animal testing is inhuman and should be banned

Animal testing is inhuman and should be banned

During the last decades of bio-medical research development, millions of animals were used each year for testing the safety and effect of drugs and medicines before the medical clinic trial on human beings. Some groups and organisations argued about the effectiveness of animal testing and against killing of these animals. They also pointed out that there were many more advanced methods to analyse the drug effectiveness, such as cell culturing, computer stimulation and so on. However, a majority of people who worked in the bio-medical field approved animal experiments and they believed that animal testing brought lots of benefits for human health and there was no reason to stop it. In addition, from the perspective of ethics, animal testing should be gradually replaced and avoided in most medical research cases. This essay aims to summaries five articles related to animal testing. The pros and cons of animal experiments will be described and discussed.

1. In most cases the result from animal testing is not effective and accurate when it is applied on human beings
2. Alternative ways can replace testing and research on animals.
3. Millions Of animals suffer and die as a result of drug research.
4. Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade.
5. Medical research on animals is improving human health.

1. Testing on animals was not effective and applicable because of four reasons. Firstly, People might have rich experience in treating diabetes in animals, but people did not totally understand diabetes in human. Animal testing was not reliable for research on human health and disease. Moreover, animal models usually resulted in wrong research outcomes. Next, it was still not able to exactly recreate human disease in animal testing. Thus, artificially created disease on animals was meaningless to medical research. Thirdly, it was very hard for animal testing researchers to achieve more because it was difficult to mimic and develop similar underlying conditions and disease for animals. Finally, animals’ experiments were in fact misdirecting people to discover the true causes of human disease. To conclude, there were other ways to understand human systems and it was necessary to avoid animal testing, which leaded to unreliable results (Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., 2013).

2.Animal testing was replaceable as alternatives were applicable and effective, such as cell engineering, computer stimulation and etc. Research on animals should be replaced because of three reasons. First of all, it was crucial to find out more methods to avoid pain and death in animal experiments. In other words, based on safety, testing on human beings was more important and meaningful. Second, for animals, they equally had rights just like human beings. People needed to respect and protect them. Third, animal cruelty was a vital issue however people should take the responsibility and maintain the balance of the Eco-system instead of taking advantage of them for self-benefit. People could not break the minimum level of Eco-system, or catastrophic impact would be caused (Shashank Nakate, 2011).

3.There were millions of animals suffer and die in forbidding chemical every year, including drug, food and cosmetics tests and also in biology classes, medical training's, and medical experiments at universities. However, some tests were not even necessary and they provided misleading results. Although a product harmed animals, it might still be released to the market. These tests were conducted regularly in the United States. The United States government wasted funds on the misleading tests instead of spending them on the experiments that related to humans. Animal testing should be stopped and alternative approaches should be educated to the agencies that conducted experiments on animals ("Animal Testing 101", n.d.).

4.Prohibiting animal testing for medical application was hardly achieved due to its four crucial roles in medical progress. Firstly, research on animals was of great importance to improve medical treatments for both human and animal health. Second, scientists agreed that animal’s physical systems made huge contribution to human’s systems. Worldwide medical field also supported that animal research was important and necessary. Third, animal testing also conducted as effective treatments to save or extend their own life. Animal subjects were essential for medical research and therefore we must provide them with particular care and concern. Finally, people who were involved in medical science and knew the importance for treating disease had no doubt about animal experiments. In conclusion, animal testing could not be banned ("Research Policy Statements", n.d.).

5.Research on animals was worthwhile and improved human health in five ways. Firstly, using animals as subjects for bio-medical research was necessary and people who accused scientists of killing animals for experiments actually ignored the fact that these subjects made enormous contribution to human health. Secondly, it was improper to define these researchers as cruel and inhuman. The mentality and physiology of animal subjects determined the accuracy of the research result so that they needed to be well treated and taken great care of. Next, using animals for research was misunderstood as cruelty by animal activists group. Furthermore, bio-medical research offered a way for those wasted animals to bring their values to the medical field. Finally, bio-medical research was misunderstood and lots of its progress has been ignored by those activists. In conclusion, these animal subjects were very important to the bio-medical industry and people needed their valuable contribution ("Animal Testing Essay, Example Composition Writing on Animal Testing", n.d.).

The essay summarized two pros and three cons of animal testing. Animal subjects have been played a key role in the medical research, although there were arguments about whether using animals as research subjects was the effective way to produce clinical results. Medical experiments on animals improved human health. However, the studies suggested that animal testing was replaceable by alternatives. In conclusion, there was still a lot of uncertainty regarding to how the medical research could be conducted to avoid negative impact on the testing subjects. 

                                                      

Reference list:

 Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H., (August 27, 2013). Why Animal Experimentation Doesn't Work -- Reason 2: Animals Don't Get Human Diseases. Retrieved May 12, 2014, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aysha-akhtar/animal-testing-diseases_b_3813856.html

Shashank Nakate, (September 28, 2011). Alternatives to Animal Testing. Retrieved May 12, 2014, from

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/alternatives-to-animal-testing.html

Animal Testing 101, (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2014, from

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/

Research Policy Statements, (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2014, from

http://fbresearch.org/about-fbr/research-policy-statements/

Animal Testing Essay, Example Composition Writing on Animal Testing, (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2014, from

http://www.my-english-writing.com/animal-testing.htm

                                                                                   Author by Yuli Zhang