Difference between revisions of "Animal Experimentation"
(→Pro) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | ==Pros== | |
| + | ===Testing is Necessary=== | ||
| + | '''Animal Experimentation is Necessary to Ensure Safety''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Research, PIR Partners. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary to Ensure Product Safety." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002236&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>. | ||
| − | + | Partners in Research (PIR) is a Canadian national charity established in 1988 to educate the public—particularly young people—about the history and accomplishments of health research. | |
| + | Animal testing has aided humans in a number of important ways. Because of toxicity testing, for instance, poison centers are able to aid parents when a child has swallowed a harmful product. Before animal testing, humans served as the first test subjects for new drugs; because of multiple accidents, however, the government eventually required drug companies to test new products on animals. Scientists have worked to limit the number of animals used in experiments; alternative testing methods have also helped reduce the number of animals used. But the complexity of human biology makes it impossible at present to eliminate animal testing. Until effective technology is available, animal testing will remain a valuable aid to ensuring the safety of new drugs. | ||
| − | + | '''Nicole Apted''' | |
| + | ===Essential for Research=== | ||
| + | '''Animal Testing is Essential for Medical Research''' | ||
| − | + | Corey, Lawrence. "Animal Testing Is Essential for Medical Research." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002220&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>. | |
| − | + | Animal testing is essential to drug and vaccine research. In particular, animal experiments have been vital in discovering drugs that slow the progress of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS. Similar advancements have occurred in developing treatments for herpes and hepatitis B because of animal testing. New methods of research such as computer modeling and in vitro testing have helped reduce the use of animals in biomedical research in the last twenty years, but animal experimentation is still needed to prevent harm to humans from new medicines or vaccines. Without animal experimentation, human lives would be jeopardized. | |
| − | + | '''Nicole Apted''' | |
| − | + | ====Experimentation is Justified==== | |
| − | + | '''Experimentation is always Justified''' | |
| − | + | "Animal Experimentation Is Always Justified." Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Animal Rights. Ed. Jennifer A.Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 23 Mar. 2010<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010088222&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | This is a good article that makes a lot of general arguments as to why animal experimentation is justified. It doesn't go into a lot of detail, but makes the case that if animal testing weren't beneficial to us for medical research, then we wouldn't be using it. The author argues that if animal testing saves human lives, then that is enough to justify it. She goes on to use the example of how animal testing helped cure polio, how it is helping us now make steps in AIDS research, and that there is no legitimate and comparable alternative to using animals. | |
| − | |||
| − | ''' | + | '''Jenna Grabarek''' |
| − | |||
| − | ''' | + | ==Cons== |
| + | ===Alternatives to Animal Testing=== | ||
| + | '''Viewpoint: There are alternatives to animal testing''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit:Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002240&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>. | ||
| − | + | Author Carol Howard uses the "Three R's" to explain how we can find alternatives to animal testing in the future. They are replacement, reduction and refinement. Replacement refers to the fact that we can replace animals with other forms of testing. The other two R's refer to finding ways to reduce the ways in which we use animals as much as possible and refining our methods so they are less destructive to animals. "Alternative" does not necessarily mean not using animals entirely, but it means working to find methods that work just as well if not better. We need to get educate the future generations of scientists about the search for alternatives that are more humane and simply "better" science. | |
| − | Animal | + | '''Jenna Grabarek''' |
| + | ====Testing is Unscientific==== | ||
| + | '''Viewpoint: Animal Testing is unscientific.''' | ||
| − | + | Burgos, Javier B. "Animal Experimentation Is Unscientific." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. David M. Haugen.San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002211&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>. | |
| − | + | This author argues that there is not enough scientific research that actually proves 100% of the time that what happens in animals bodies in test would also happen to people. Animals are not humans, and therefore we cannot always trust research results that come from animal testing. On many occasions animal testing has failed to answer our questions about human health problems. Also, studies have shown that some antibiotics that poison the human body are perfectly consumable by some animals, and vice versa. Our health care systems already spends too much on ineffective testing, and animal testing fits under that category. True clinical research needs to be the emphasis in health studies. | |
| + | '''Jenna Grabarek''' | ||
| + | ====Testing is Exaggerated==== | ||
'''Animal Experimentation is Exaggerated''' | '''Animal Experimentation is Exaggerated''' | ||
| Line 48: | Line 57: | ||
'''Ally Archer''' | '''Ally Archer''' | ||
| − | + | =====Animal Testing Hampers Research===== | |
| − | + | ''''''Animal Experimentation Hampers Research'''''' | |
| − | '''Animal Experimentation Hampers Research''' | ||
The author is arguing that animal testing does not work, because with humans sometimes experience side effects with medicine or cosmetics that were “safely tested” on animals. Also, animals cannot explain any psychological side effects, such as headaches, nausea, or depression. Some corporations use animal testing as an “alibi” just in case humans experience bad effects or even death. | The author is arguing that animal testing does not work, because with humans sometimes experience side effects with medicine or cosmetics that were “safely tested” on animals. Also, animals cannot explain any psychological side effects, such as headaches, nausea, or depression. Some corporations use animal testing as an “alibi” just in case humans experience bad effects or even death. | ||
Latest revision as of 02:40, 24 March 2010
Contents
Pros
Testing is Necessary
Animal Experimentation is Necessary to Ensure Safety
Research, PIR Partners. "Animal Experimentation Is Necessary to Ensure Product Safety." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002236&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
Partners in Research (PIR) is a Canadian national charity established in 1988 to educate the public—particularly young people—about the history and accomplishments of health research. Animal testing has aided humans in a number of important ways. Because of toxicity testing, for instance, poison centers are able to aid parents when a child has swallowed a harmful product. Before animal testing, humans served as the first test subjects for new drugs; because of multiple accidents, however, the government eventually required drug companies to test new products on animals. Scientists have worked to limit the number of animals used in experiments; alternative testing methods have also helped reduce the number of animals used. But the complexity of human biology makes it impossible at present to eliminate animal testing. Until effective technology is available, animal testing will remain a valuable aid to ensuring the safety of new drugs.
Nicole Apted
Essential for Research
Animal Testing is Essential for Medical Research
Corey, Lawrence. "Animal Testing Is Essential for Medical Research." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002220&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
Animal testing is essential to drug and vaccine research. In particular, animal experiments have been vital in discovering drugs that slow the progress of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS. Similar advancements have occurred in developing treatments for herpes and hepatitis B because of animal testing. New methods of research such as computer modeling and in vitro testing have helped reduce the use of animals in biomedical research in the last twenty years, but animal experimentation is still needed to prevent harm to humans from new medicines or vaccines. Without animal experimentation, human lives would be jeopardized.
Nicole Apted
Experimentation is Justified
Experimentation is always Justified
"Animal Experimentation Is Always Justified." Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Animal Rights. Ed. Jennifer A.Hurley. San Diego: Greenhaven Press,1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 23 Mar. 2010<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010088222&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
This is a good article that makes a lot of general arguments as to why animal experimentation is justified. It doesn't go into a lot of detail, but makes the case that if animal testing weren't beneficial to us for medical research, then we wouldn't be using it. The author argues that if animal testing saves human lives, then that is enough to justify it. She goes on to use the example of how animal testing helped cure polio, how it is helping us now make steps in AIDS research, and that there is no legitimate and comparable alternative to using animals.
Jenna Grabarek
Cons
Alternatives to Animal Testing
Viewpoint: There are alternatives to animal testing
Howard, Carol. "Alternative Testing Can Replace Animal Experimentation." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit:Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010<http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002240&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
Author Carol Howard uses the "Three R's" to explain how we can find alternatives to animal testing in the future. They are replacement, reduction and refinement. Replacement refers to the fact that we can replace animals with other forms of testing. The other two R's refer to finding ways to reduce the ways in which we use animals as much as possible and refining our methods so they are less destructive to animals. "Alternative" does not necessarily mean not using animals entirely, but it means working to find methods that work just as well if not better. We need to get educate the future generations of scientists about the search for alternatives that are more humane and simply "better" science.
Jenna Grabarek
Testing is Unscientific
Viewpoint: Animal Testing is unscientific.
Burgos, Javier B. "Animal Experimentation Is Unscientific." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. David M. Haugen.San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002211&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
This author argues that there is not enough scientific research that actually proves 100% of the time that what happens in animals bodies in test would also happen to people. Animals are not humans, and therefore we cannot always trust research results that come from animal testing. On many occasions animal testing has failed to answer our questions about human health problems. Also, studies have shown that some antibiotics that poison the human body are perfectly consumable by some animals, and vice versa. Our health care systems already spends too much on ineffective testing, and animal testing fits under that category. True clinical research needs to be the emphasis in health studies.
Jenna Grabarek
Testing is Exaggerated
Animal Experimentation is Exaggerated
Increasing numbers of scientists and clinicians are challenging animal experimentation on medical and scientific grounds.... Considerable evidence demonstrates that animal experimentation is inefficient and unreliable, while newly developed methodologies are more valid and less expensive than animal studies.
Pippin, Christopher Anderegg, Kathy Archibald, Jarrod Bailey, Murry J. Cohen, Stephen R. Kaufman, and John J. "The Value of Animal Experimentation Is Exaggerated." Current Controversies: Rights of Animals. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010062279&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
Ally Archer
Animal Testing Hampers Research
'Animal Experimentation Hampers Research'
The author is arguing that animal testing does not work, because with humans sometimes experience side effects with medicine or cosmetics that were “safely tested” on animals. Also, animals cannot explain any psychological side effects, such as headaches, nausea, or depression. Some corporations use animal testing as an “alibi” just in case humans experience bad effects or even death.
Thomas, Pat. "Animal Experimentation Hampers Medical Research." At Issue: Animal Experimentation. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. INLAN - Gonzaga University Library. 17 Mar. 2010 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010002246&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=gonzagaufoley&version=1.0>.
Ally Archer
