PlanetPapers.com RSS Feed

Zoos are nothing more than prisons where every sentence is a life sentence.

2006-10-12T09:29:10-04:00

As a child we all must have dreamt about visiting a zoo. During our visit we all might have teased the animals in the cage, or gave them some food to eat. We all might have made fun out of those innocent animals or even laughed at them. Often those animals behind the bars are treated as amusement and entertainment source by most of the visitors. But have we ever thought of those animals there? Have we ever dared to find out the reality as so why such guiltless creatures have to face such harsh punishment of being in captivity through out their lives? The answer could simply be no. If people had realized, they would not have supported such institutions which prevents animals to live with freedom. In zoo, animals not only loose their independent life but also loose their natural habitat. They are forced to live in small enclosures (cages) without environmental enrichment. This hampers both their physical and mental health which in most of the cases results into early deaths. Also, many animals loose their appetite as the diets provided in the zoo are unnatural. Unnatural in the sense that those animals do not have to labor for their food. Many of us think that animals have easier life in zoo as they get adequate meal and proper protection. But actually the stress they endure in the zoo is greater then what we think. We normally imprison them who commit crimes or offend rules and regulation. But what crimes have such innocuous animals committed? Is this because these animals couldn’t be more superior than us or is it because we humans cannot stop showing our domination over other creatures? These animals are certainly being used for human motives. When animals are captured from their wild habitat and are taken to zoos they must serve for the zoo until they die. Not only they will have to live in captivity but also have to face harassment of several visitors passing by. Operation of zoo has always supplied money to the owner but the owners of the zoo

Animal Testing in the Cosmetic Industry

2005-11-27T22:03:39-05:00

Dr. Frank Meehan picked up Charlie, the frail brown monkey and placed him into what would soon be his coffin. Charlie was screaming hysterically almost knowing that his time had come in the small research laboratory for a common cleaner product. Charlie had seen many of the other animals die the same agonizing death that he envisioned himself to be receiving soon. What would it be this time? Pumping the cleaner into his stomach or pouring it directly on his skin to study the burning of tissue? Perhaps it will be dripped into his eyes to test the blinding effects. All Charlie knew was that he was going to be dying a slow and painful death just like all the other animals in the lab. This is just one example of what most animals in a research laboratory undergo every day. Most don’t survive as they are pricked, prodded and pumped with chemicals that no human would want to inhale much less swallow. The use of animal testing in the cosmetics industry has been widely accepted in today’s society. With new ideas overflowing, there is little to do but expect the wide variety of products that have been handed to us. Besides, there are regulations put on companies testing options, right? What if those regulations are rarely checked? In fact, most are so vague they are not even restricting such tests that blind, paralyze and torture defenseless animals solely for the breakthrough in human hygiene and attraction. The use of animal testing for cosmetic purposes is unjustifiable and outdated. Companies that continue to blind and poison animals do so simply because they don’t have the vision to try a new and better way. There are many alternatives to animal studies that are not being considered. Such alternatives have shown to be more accurate thus should be strictly enforced by law. Most of us are ignorant of what is actually happening behind the close doors of a company laboratory. A kitten convulsing after being doused with a chemical, or a rabbit whose skin had been eaten away by an acidic substance is not an uncommon thing found. With these procedures, anesthetics are never used as most scientists say it interferes with the results. These animals are being mutilated and tortured so humans can get the best hair dye, perfume, and toothpaste on the market. In one experiment, a pet’s eyelids were

Go Vegetarian; You Have No More Excuses

2002-03-06T13:00:00-05:00

Everyday, more and more people are making the choice to lead a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Vegans abstain from partaking in all animal products, including honey and dairy products. Vegans do not use goose down, silk, wool or leather. The American Vegan Society (AVS) says that “vegan” is describing a lifestyle that avoids all forms of animal life, not just a diet (Krizmaniac 8). The definition of a true vegetarian is a person who does not eat any meat products or gelatin, but does eat dairy products (Krizmaniac 6). People who choose to live a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle may have several reasons for making that choice, including animal rights and health reasons. One of the two most common reasons people choose to be vegan or vegetarian is due to harsh living conditions, mistreatment and slaughter of animals on industrial farms. Factory farmed animals are giving many types of hormones to reproduce more, grow larger and faster. As for cows, many people believe it does not hurt them to be milked; however it is unprofitable to keep a cow once its milk production declines. Therefore, dairy consumption leads directly to slaughter. By using these hormones, cows on industrial farms are forced to produce 8.2 tons of milk per year, whereas a normal cow would produce 3.5 tons of milk per year, naturally (Vegan Outreach 4). As for birds on farms, they are the most overcrowded. They are kept in cages stacked one on top of the other, so that the feces falls from the top to the cage below. Since they are kept in wire cares and cannot move, it is common to find the skin of their toes frowns around the wire bottom (Vegan Outreach 4). Also, to get the hens to reproduce more often, they are starved for eighteen days and kept in the dark to shock them into another egg laying cycle, which causes about ten percent to die (Vegan Outreach 4). The average hen should produce about seventy eggs a year, but on industrial farms, the count has been up to tow-hundred and seventy-five per year (Vegan Outreach 4). And because they have been manipulated to lay such large eggs, the hens’ uterus is often expelled along with the egg. Pigs are also extremely crowded, living on hard floors, commonly covered with feces and vomit. Because of this confinement, pigs become aggressive and will fight and bite

Clothing - Diva Princess or Animal Killer?

2001-06-28T14:00:00-04:00

You're walking down the street in D.C. or some other major city and chances are you're going to see some little girl with leopard prints on her pants, or a little zebra halter top. Maybe you're like the usual person, dismissing the apparel as a significant component in female pop culture. But have you ever stopped to ponder that though these animal prints are usually syntheticly

Animal Testing (Speech Outline)

2001-04-16T14:00:00-04:00

Specific Purpose – To persuade my audience that animal testing is wrong and how other safer alternatives should be taken. Central Idea – By going the extra mile in using safer alternatives when experimenting with animals will not only prevent conflicts from pro-life activists, it will minimize lawsuits and morals will be preserved. Introduction I. Okay I got a riddle I made up for the class. A. What was once cute and furry but becomes a bloody rotted mess? B. You guys give up? C. Well the answer to this question is an animal that has undergone chemical testing. II. I know that wasn’t too funny but I needed some sort of attention-grabber and this hit home on the question of my topic; whether animal testing is right or wrong. A. After all, the question whether animals should be tested is often hotly debated. B. Through intense research I have discovered that the issue on whether animals should be experimented upon, or “vivisection”, has cropped up in history as early as the 17th century. III. Although animal testing is much less frequent today than in the past, I will reinforce the idea that alternatives to animal testing should be preserved today. A. I will first explain the conflicts in the past where animal testing caused many problems. B. Then I will reinforce the solution to animal testing by discussing the various alternatives that can be taken. (Transition: Let us first look at the problem of animal testing.) Body I. As I have mentioned, the question on animal testing was posed even as early as the 17th century, according to the All For Animals Newsletter. A. According to this newsletter, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham rejected philosopher Rene Descartes’ theory that because animals have no reasoning that humans have, they therefore cannot feel pain or suffering. 1. But Bentham went further in this issue, rejecting Descartes’ idea because the idea of reasoning was irrelevant on the moral issue whether animals should be tested. 2. Bentham’s philosophy on animals, instead, was: “The question is not can they reason? Nor can they talk? But could they suffer?” B. Vivisection began early after Bentham’s time period as scientists cut open animals to learn about the functions of the heart, lungs, and other parts of the body. C. The practice of testing cosmetics on animals started around 1933. 1. This began after a woman used Lush Lure cosmetics darken her eye lashes. 2. The woman’s eyes eventually burned, and later the woman became blind and eventually died. 3. Because of this incident, the Food and Drug Administration passed the Federal Food, Drug,

Protection of Endangered Species

2001-04-08T14:00:00-04:00

Out of all the species that have ever existed since the beginning of time, 98% of them are extinct (Facts). There are an estimated 5-10 million species that exist currently and only 1.5 million have been identified (Sherry, 2). Scientists classify species into six different groups: plants, animals, insects, algae, fungi, and microorganisms (Today’s Situation). In the tropical rainforest alone, most species are disappearing at the rate of 1% a year (Sherry, 6). If the current trend continues, at least 50% of all currently existing species will be either extinct or endangered by the year 2050 (Today’s Situation). For this reason endangered species deserve more protection than the current regulations provide. Throughout history there have been many different reasons for the extinction of species. The earliest known reason was 64-66 million years ago when scientists believe a meteorite struck earth causing the extinction of the dinosaur and of 85% of the species existing at the time (Sherry, 2). Another major problem is the introduction of species into a new environment. Most introduced species become pests because they have no natural enemies and can easily out compete native species that have natural enemies, thus overpopulating a certain environment (Sherry, 5). The main causes of extinction are habitat destruction, commercial exploitation, damage by non-native species introduced into the environment, and pollution (Definition of endangered species). Out of all of these, habitat destruction is the major source of extinction. It is thought that at least 4,000-6,000 species become extinct each year in the rain forest alone due to burning acreage to make room for farm fields (Today’s situation). Most of the human caused extinctions occurred during the Industrial Revolution, which was 250 years ago (Sherry, 2). Another significant reason for the decline, if not extinction of species is hunting and poaching animals. A good example of this is the near extinction of the American Bison due to over hunting. Between 1870 and 1875, 2.5 million Bison were killed annually. In 1883 the last significant herd with around 10,000 members was done away with. By 1990 there were only an estimated 500 plain Bison remaining in the United State (Direct Causes). These are all key reasons for the extinction of species and if we can avoid them then we may prevent the future extinction of other species. The first federal role in protecting wildlife began with the Lacey Act of 1900. It was the first attempt

Cruelty to Animals

2001-03-08T13:00:00-05:00

A Major Issue of today are the cruel acts against test animals in class rooms and labs, these animals are literally being tortured to death by substances such as drugs, cosmetics, diseases, tobacco, alcohol, detergents and other poisons. After all these acts of cruelty such as locking animals in complete darkness, sending them crazy, turning them in to drug addicts inflicting diseases on them such as aids and Cancer, sending them blind or deaf, and there has even been cases of dogs being stiched together, and many cases of mice, rabbits, guinea pigs and even monkeys having cosmetics, detergents and other household products rubbed into thier shaven skin and having it dripped into thier eyes all while being under no anesthetic at all and for what reason, what does this achieve we are only finding out things we already know such as we know smoking causes cancer, drinkig ruins the liver and we know the side effects of drugs on humans and the results from these experiments are not totally 100% accurate anyway because animals are different to humans. In high schools around the world hundreds and thousands of animals are killed and dissected in science and biology classes simply to learn the anatomy of a frog or rat for example. For what reason do they teach this? So we can know how to inflict cruelty towards animals. In most of these cases children are forced to do so and if they chose not to inflict these cruel acts towards a helpless animal they will suffer as well by a loss of marks or fail in sum classes. So why does our education system still make us do this and for what reason. After years of science and technology why do we still use these unreliable and cruel sources to find out little or no informantion about cures for diseases and why after all this time couldn’t they be spending time and money on preventing these diseses in the first place by changing the environment around them instead of using all these inhumane tests on all these animals to prove nothing. We are constantly hearing on the news and other programs about people going to Jail for feeding mice and other rodents to there pet snakes for example, or of people having there animals taken from them and being fined because they haven’t been feeding them or looking after them. We know

Should Foxhunting be Banned in Britain?

2001-02-21T13:00:00-05:00

I would like to start this essay by stating that I am against the motion, and that I see no reason what so ever why fox hunting should be banned in this country. Fox hunting is a very controversial subject, and for many years people have campaigned against it. Fox hunting is classed as a blood sport, which involves hounds chasing a fox, in order to kill it. There are also people following the fox on horses. Many of these people carry guns, in case the fox manages to escape with injuries. This way, the fox is put out of its misery and suffers little pain. Apart from being a sport that is enjoyed by many people, fox hunting is also a tradition and provides many people with employment as the animals need to be looked after, and the participants of the sport need accommodation. People who are for the motion, have no real argument! All their arguments are based on their opinion and are purely emotional. One of their points would be: ‘Fox hunting is a cruel and inhumane practise.’ I strongly disagree with this as in my eyes; fox hunting helps conserve the countryside and is a necessity in rural life. Apart from preventing other animals from being killed, fox hunting is the most effective method of killing foxes. People also believe that fox hunting is barbaric and that there is no point in killing an innocent animal. Most of the people who believe this are hypocrites! During a fox hunt, a fox suffers little pain as it is usually killed from the first bite. Other sports, such as fishing are far more ‘inhumane’! Fish are pulled out of the water, still alive and are left to die in the open air. This is obviously painful on the animal, but there are no people publicly campaigning about it and trying to ban it! Why should it be any different for foxes? Another argument would be that ‘fox hunting serves no purpose.’ This is a load of rubbish! If the numbers were not controlled, many other species would start to die out! Foxes will eat or attack anything from pheasant eggs to sheep! They kill for fun, and often leave the animal suffering with limbs torn off for a whole night! This proves that fox hunting has a purpose: it protects other animals and it provides for the local economy. I think

Animal Testing

2000-11-14T13:00:00-05:00

ISSUE: For the most part, we would not be able to live very comfortably without them. The question of what is considered proper treatment of animals has been highly debated by groups looking at both the moral and ethical issues of the situation. What exactly is our proper role with regard to non-human creatures? Do they have any rights, or may we do as we please with them? These are questions that politicians all over the world have been arguing about for many years, and still is as controversial as ever! PROBLEM: How can animal testing benefit both animals and humans without harming the animals? BACKGROUND: For thousands of years, humans have used animals for a variety of purposes including food, clothing, labor, means of transportation, hunting, medicine, and companionship. However, many personal beauty products, such as lipstick, face cream, anti-perspirant, and laundry detergent all have one major characteristic in common: the suffering and death of millions of animals (Dickinson 13). Canada has no legislation to protect laboratory animals from any form of mistreatment, abuse, or neglect. Great Britain has nothing in the way of constitutional ethical treatment of laboratory animals. In the United States, the U.S. Welfare Animal Act (passed in 1966 and later amended in 1970 and 1976) charges the U.S. Department of Agriculture with overseeing the humane handling and housing of animals in laboratories, pet dealerships, and exhibitions. While the law covers lab animals (such as rabbits, mice, dogs, and monkeys) it does not state that the animals are to be cared for or to be treated for injuries received from experiments, nor does it state that animals in laboratories can be used for only a limited number of experiments with the least possible suffering and distress (Dickinson 15). In effect then, there is no protection given to lab animals. On average, 25 million animals die every year in North America for the testing of everything from new cosmetics to new methods of warfare. Five hundred thousand to one million of these animals are sacrificed each year to test new cosmetics alone (Dickinson 13). There are many kinds of tests performed on animals. One kind is the Acute Toxicity Test, which requires between 60 and 100 animals to determine what constitutes a lethal dose of a particular substance. The test spans a time period from two weeks to seven years, depending on the amount of toxic chemicals in the product

The Rights of Animals

2000-10-05T14:00:00-04:00

Sam Vaknin's Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites Animal rights is a catchphrase akin to human rights. It involves, however, a few pitfalls. First, animals exist only as a concept. Otherwise, they are cuddly cats, curly dogs, cute monkeys. A rat and a puppy are both animals but our emotional reaction to them is so different that we cannot really lump them together. Moreover: what rights are we talking about? The right to life? The right to be free of pain? The right to food? Except the right to free speech – all the other rights could be relevant to animals. But when we say animals, what we really mean is non-human organism. This is such a wide definition that it easily pertains to potential aliens. Will we witness an Alien Rights movement soon? so, we are forced to narrow our field to non-human organisms which remind us of humans and, thus, provoke empathy in us. Yet, this is a dangerous and not very practical test: too many people love snakes, for instance and deeply empathize with them. Will we agree to the assertion (which will, probably, be avidly supported by these people) that snakes have rights – or should we confine our grace to organisms with nervous systems (=which, presumably, can feel pain). Even better is the criterion : whatever we cannot communicate with and is alive is a rights-holder. Historically, philosophers like Kant (and Descartes, and Malebranche and even Aquinas) did not favour the idea of animal rights. They said that animals are the organic equivalents of machines, moved by coarse instincts, unable to experience pain (though their behaviour sometimes might deceive us into erroneously believing that they do). Thus, any moral obligation that we have towards animals is a derivative of a primary obligation towards our fellow humans (the morally significant ones and only ones). These are the indirect moral obligations theories. For instance: it is wrong to torture animals because it desensitizes us to human suffering and makes us more prone to using violence towards humans. Malebranche augmented this rational line of thinking by proving that animals cannot suffer pain because they do not descend from Adam and all the pain and suffering in the world are the result of his sins. But how can we say whether another Being is suffering pain or not? The answer is based on empathy. If the other

Animal Rights

2000-08-19T14:00:00-04:00

One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even though no law requires them to do so. Some people, called anti-vivisectionists, are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that God gave us such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has dominion over all creatures. If what is done to the animal may produce something of educational value, adds to scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is worth killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that the unnecessary testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative methods are available. The anti-vivisectionists say we should allow no experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists, claim that we can do anything to animals if it is for the ultimate good of humanity. Perhaps they are both wrong. Much can be learned from treating animals that are already sick or injured in testing new life-saving drugs and surgical techniques. Animals, as well as people benefit from new discoveries. But is it right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment, eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active life-style? Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly healthy animals? Do we have the right to continue doing experiments over and over again in a needless repetition and a waste of animals if no new information is going to be gained. Animals suffer unnecessarily and their lives are pointlessly wasted. If the issue were simple, animal experimentation might never have become so controversial. Each year in the United States an estimated 20-70 million animals-from cats, dogs and primates, to rabbits, rats and mice-suffer and die in the name of research. Animal tests for the safety of cosmetics, household products and chemicals are the least justifiable. Animals have doses of shampoo, hair spray, and deodorant dripped into their eyes

Do We Really Love Our Animals?

2000-05-01T14:00:00-04:00

Do you consider yourself a pet lover? Do you love animals in general? Can you imagine yourself as a little boy in a trailer far away from the depths of socialization? Once upon a time there was this boy, and this boy had a friend. No matter how hard times got he had Bo. The boy was incredibly happy because he had always dreamed of having a dog like that, a companion. Then your friend dies and you are left standing. Can you imagine the pain? Nobody likes to lose a good friend or a pet, and the majority of the population loves animals. However, evidence points that people don’t like animals as much as they claim to because the majority of the population tends to over look the genocide that exists this very instance. Gandhi once wrote, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the ways its animals are treated"(Why Vegan? 1) Gandhi brings up a good point because the issue of Animal Rights is in fact an issue of one’s moral code. To define the morality and ethics, this paper will refer to Ayn Rand’s definition taken from the book, The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand describes itthis way, "It is a code of values to guide a man’s choices and actions that determine the purpose of his life" (Rand 13). Can the common animal lover really love animals that much and is it in their moral code to protect the living? Maybe they would if they were presented with the facts about vivisection and the meat industry. The truth of the matter is, people don’t love animals as much as they claim to, because they allow mistreatment, support companies that practice Vivisection, and the majority of the population still eats meat. The first form of oppression comes from probably one of the most grotesquely cruel practices of all. Did you know that from buying your toothpaste to buying your cosmetics, you open yourself up for the opportunity to participate in the funding of Vivisection? PETA, an international non profit organization designed to protect the rights of animals has defined the term as, "Vivisection is the practice of experimenting on live animals" (PETA 1). Let’s start with the large amount of animals Vivisection effects. The American Anti-Vivisection Society reports that, "Between 25 and 50 million animals are killed in American Laboratories each Year"(www.aavs.org/Doc). Animal’s

Medical Testing On Animals

2000-01-19T13:00:00-05:00

Animals have been used in medical research for centuries. Most of the animals used for research are rodents - rats, mice, hamsters and gerbils. Some dogs, cats and a variety of goats, ferrets, pigeons, monkeys and rabbits are also used .The struggle against this tyranny is a struggle as important as any of the moral and social issues that have been fought over in recent years. Animal rights are an emotional issue-second only, perhaps, to the bitter abortion debate." For decades the value of animal research has been grossly overrated. Although researchers have depended on animal test data to achieve medical advances, there should be other means of research because testing on animals is cruel, inhumane, and often unnecessary. The American Medical Association believes that research involving animals is absolutely essential to maintaining and improving the health human beings. They point out, that virtually every advance in medical science in the 20th century, from antibiotics to organ transplants, has been achieved either directly or indirectly through the use of animals in laboratory experiments. They also emphasize that animal research holds the key for solutions to AIDS, cancer, heart disease, aging and congenital defects. Lastly they insist that, the result of these experiments has been the elimination or control of many infectious diseases. This has meant a longer, healthier, better life with much less pain and suffering for humans. For many patients, it has meant life it self. However, there should be other means of research because the whole process of animal research remains cruel and inhumane. Animal rights activists have gathered a large amount of information that has closed down many laboratories that violate anti-cruelty statutes. In the past, research labs have had to be subsequently suspended due to animal cruelty. Reports involving horrifyingly painful experiments on monkeys and the filthy laboratories the animals must live in. Animals limited to living in tiny metal cages in which they can barely move. From the capture of primates in the wild, to the "factory-like" breeding of mice and dogs, to the confinement and isolation of cages - research is inherently cruel. Animal research is often unnecessary, history has shown that many important medical advances have been made by clinical research and close observations of human patients, not animals. There are countries that don't use healthy animals to train veterinarians or teach surgical techniques. In England they use only sick or injured animals and do

Cause for Vegetarianism

1999-09-29T14:00:00-04:00

The choice of eating meat or not has been a debated issue for a continued number of years. There have long since been two sides: the proponents and opponents of meat consumption. More and more debates of its value and effect on the world have risen. Many claim it is wrong, while others think of it as a needed pleasure. Today, a greater percentage of the population eats meat. Only a few individuals seek the alternative route. Yet, there has been a steady rise in the number of vegetarians. Many may already know that religions all over the world have advocated a meat-free diet. While a few are lenient, the majority is steady. The reason a vegetarian diet has been preferred over meat dates back thousands of years. Take for example, the Christian tradition. Although most are now lenient, previously many great saints advocated a meat-free diet, for more reasons than one. In the beginning it was said by God, " Here I have given you all vegetation bearing seed which is on the surface of the whole earth...to you let it serve as food." (gen.1.29) Later it was spoken by Jesus of the commandment, "thou shall not kill". Jesus said, "You heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'Thou shall not kill; and whoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment."(Matthw.5.21) There is also the Hindu tradition, where a meatless way of life has gone on for thousands of years (until the invasion by foreign rule, forcing some to comply to foreign acts). This tradition has volumes of scriptures proclaiming vegetarianism. Take for example this quote from the Srimad Bhagavatam 1.7.37, "A cruel and wretched person who maintains his existence at the cost of others' lives deserves to be killed for his own eternal well-being, otherwise he will go down by his own actions." There are many more such quotes from scriptures all over the world. Yet nowadays, there is just the opposite of vegetarianism in compliance of these ancient texts. "Although meat-eating has been denied to the human form by God and his sons and daughters of the past, people still adopt the process." Such are the statements of devout followers who adhere to a meat-free diet in accordance to scriptural texts. Those who advocate vegetarianism profess that many people are weak of heart and so succumb to meat eating. While those who advocate a meat-oriented

Animal Rights

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

As Doctor Zola-Morgan stated in a speech to animal right activists, "I've seen the impact of the animal rights movement. I believe this is an attack on science of the worst kind. If we allow it to prevail it will take us back to the dark ages." Too much of the public has come to think of medical researchers as "tormenters rather than healers." The good is overlooked and the bad is exploited. Although many people think that animal research is morally wrong, animal research should continue because it is critical to continued progress in human health and alternatives to research animals are not available. Animal rights activists feel that animal research is immoral. They do not see where we as human beings see or feel that we are the dominant species. They often assert that research with animals causes severe pain and that many research animals are abused. The activists do not feel the need to put the animals through such pain. Many of the experiments are replicated also which causes an unneeded demand for animals to perform experiments. Experiments which have already been proven are still being experimented with. However, animal research is an integral part of today's society when thinking of how much progress we have gained in human health with the use of animal experimentation. To date some forty-one Nobel prizes have been awarded to scientists whose achievements depended on laboratory animals. Vaccines against polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox would not have been possible without such experiments. There also would not be such important techniques such as open heart surgery, brain surgery, coronary bypass, microsurgery to re-attached limbs, organ transplants, and correction of congenital heart defects. The list goes on about the medical advances that required animal research. Insulin to control diabetes and medications important in the management of asthma, epilepsy, arthritis, ulcers, and hypertensions are a few more to add to the list. To take animal research away would also be to halt our society's advancement of more procedures and more medicines to enhanc he better living of humans. In addition, there are no alternatives to animal experimentation that can give the same results that it can. In certain research investigations, cell, tissue, organ cultures, and computer models can be used at least in the preliminary phases of the investigation. However, in many experimental situations, culture techniques and computer models do not capture the "physiological complexity"

Animal Rights

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

Animals have been used in medical research for centuries. In a recent count, it was determined that 8,815 animals were being used for research at MSU, 8,503 of them rodents - rats, mice, hamsters and gerbils. There were 18 dogs, three cats and a variety of goats, ferrets, pigeons and rabbits. The struggle against this tyranny is a struggle as important as any of the moral and social issues that have been fought over in recent years." Animal rights are an emotional issue-second only, perhaps, to the bitter abortion debate." For decades the value of animal research has been grossly overrated. Although researchers have depended on animal test data to achieve medical advances, there should be other means of research because testing on animals is cruel and inhumane and often unnecessary. The American Medical Association believes that research involving animals is absolutely essential to maintaining and improving the health of the American people. They point out, that virtually every advance in medical science in the 20th century, from antibiotics to organ transplants, has been achieved either directly or indirectly through the use of animals in laboratory experiments. They also emphasize that animal research holds the key for solutions to AIDS, cancer, heart disease, aging and congenital defects. Lastly they insist that, the result of these experiments has been the elimination or control of many infectious diseases. This has meant a longer, healthier , better life with much less pain and suffering. For many patients, it has meant life it self. However, there should be other means of research because the whole process of animal research remains cruel and inhumane. Animal rights activists have gathered much information that has closed down laboratories that violate anti- cruelty statutes. "This includes a 1984 videotape stolen from the University of Pennsylvania Head Injury Clinic. The research subsequently suspended, reportedly involved inadequately anesthetized baboons receiving blows to the head to break their necks and cause brain damage." Alex Pacheo gives a first-person account of the conditions he witnessed in a primate laboratory. He is horrified by the painful experiments these monkeys endure. "On May 11,1981 I began work[at the Institute for Behavioral Research] and was given a tour.... I saw filth caked on the wires of the cages, faces piled in the bottom of the cages, urine and rust encrusting every surface. There, amid this rotting stench, sat sixteen crab-eating macaques and one rhesus monkey, their liv

Animal Rights

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters. A well known scientist named Neal D. Barnard said," The use of animals for research and testing is only one of many investigative techniques available. We believe that although animal experiments are sometimes intellectually seductive, they are poorly suited to addressing the urgent health problems of our era, such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, AIDS and birth defects." He goes on further to say that animal experiments can not only mislead researchers but even contribute to illnesses or deaths by failing to predict any toxic effect on drugs. The majority of animals in laboratories are used for genetic manipulation, surgical intervention or injection of foreign substances. Researchers produce solutions from these animal "models" and are adapting them to human conditions. Unfortunately, these animal "models" can't always be connected with the human body thus creating problems. Many times, researchers induce strokes on animals in order to test certain methods for curing. The downfall of this procedure is that a healthy animal that experiences a sudden stroke does not undergo the slowly progressive arterial damage that usually plays a crucial role in human strokes. In another illustration of the inaccuracy of animal research, scientists in the 1960s deduced from many animal experiments that inhaled tobacco smoke did not cause lung cancer. For many years afterward, the tobacco industry was able to use these studies to delay government warnings and to discourage physicians from intervening in their patients' smoking habits. We all know now that this is totally untrue and that smoking is a large contributor to cancer. It turns out that cancer research is especially sensitive to differences in physiology between humans and other animals. Many animals, particularly rats and mice, synthesize within their bodies approximately 100