Сontrol of Animal’s Existence: Animal Testing
Animals are the part of nature, and people used to comprehend them as the lower subjects of life. Taking into consideration their weak intellectual and logical development, humanity makes a conclusion that they have moral and ethical right to control animal’s existence. Actually, it is hard to object that this statement is wrong. However, it is necessary to admit that life is impossible without living creatures since they play quite an important role for all humanity. It concerns not only the necessity of faithful friendship with animals but also the need of experimentations and testing on beasts. Some activists of animal rights try to protect living creatures and blame the cruelty toward them. In opposition to their actions, supporters of animal tests give justifying arguments concerning the scientific experimentations applying the animal material. Although the violation of animal rights and life seems to be cruel and inhuman, the benefits from it are much significant than harm.
Animal experimentations are morally wrong, because they violate their rights. Of course, it is a debatable question for the majority of people to regard the possibility of animals to have some rights, as they do not belong to the highly developed creatures. Moreover, they cannot control their life, be responsible for their behavior, or construct fundamental plans on future. Nevertheless, animals have physiology, which is similar to people, and 95% of human genes coincide with the mouse genes (Understanding Animal Research). Thus, people have no moral right to call the animal world lower or less developed. Individuals and animals are different, but they must be treated equally. The testing of chemical substances or products safety contradicts to moral standards, as living creatures are deprived of free choice and demonstrates animal’s undesirable sacrifice for the human benefit. In addition, beasts feel terrible pain and inhuman sufferings during experiments.
Animal testing and experimentation can cause terrible pain, death or long-term sufferings with lethal consequences. “U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged” (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Animal experimentation and testing must be prohibited, as animals have the same reaction to pain as people, and their sufferings correspond to human sufferings, since their physiological ability to feel pain is the same. Some death experiments can take a few days when scientists explore the process of lethal changes, which can cause inhuman sufferings. In addition to it, experiments with toxic chemical substances are used for explorations a fatal dose. Thus, people willingly doom animals. However, activists of animal rights protection insist on the testing abolition and give the arguments that it is unnecessary.
The present scientific possibilities have some available alternatives for the living creatures’ experimentations. Different methods of animal replacement in the medical tests can reduce the death of innocent beasts. It is possible to use artificial human body elements for researches as the results will be the same or even more precise. Moreover, human artificial tissues and cells help to make the tests at the pathophysiological level. The wrong understanding of the animal lower position justifies inhuman experimentations instead of the alternative methods. Nevertheless, a cruel attitude toward living creatures is discharged by the help of positive results of testing, which are necessary for human welfare.
The necessity to make testing and experimentations on animals is essential as these are crucial for human life and health. Researches on the living creature’s material are the most important and precise, as they are the closest to the real circumstances and help to model the situation that can happen with a human. A mouse’s genes almost coincide with a human’s, what make them be the best model for experimentations, and there is no artificial material, which can produce the same results (Understanding Animal Research). Besides, the benefits from it are obvious: the statistics confirm that the cancer testing of a humanized mouse protein helps to reduce a number of lethal events, caused by the breast cancer (Understanding Animal Research). It is impossible to count all the positive consequences of animal experimentations. However, people should remember that a big number of advantages of it are more critical than disadvantages.
Polishing Your Writing to Make it Shine
In addition, the results of human habits of life and existence bring more damage for animal life than experiments. Every day the population of the planet uses the meat of different animals as the food. This aspect of life does not worry the majority of active supporters of anti-animals experimentations. The statistics show really shaking data. For example, consumers use more than in 300 times more fish than the medical experiments each year (Understanding Animal Research). The biggest part of all medical testing is experiments with mice; however, it is possible to assume that the amount of testing mice is not larger than home cats can kill during the year around the world. Moreover, the profit from scientific tests has at least real necessity in comparison with the useless hunting with the purpose to get precious fur or leather. Nevertheless, Stephanie Watson analyzes the activity of some radical groups which underline cruelty and inhuman attitude in tests, as animals feel terrible pain and emotional stress (26). Watson states that scientists have no intention to make animals suffer or feel dreadful pain, as they have other purposes, but researchers can make the process less painful. Usually, experiments are carried out in the most benevolent manner and in the most humane way. In the lethal cases, sciences can apply the method of euthanasia in order to relieve their sufferings. Animal testing and experimentations’ supporters justify the necessity of these researches also by the help of religious and ethical arguments.
Animal life cannot be compared to human’s since people is the highest level of evolution, and Christianity demonstrates the privileges of human beings over beasts. It does not matter that people must kill innocent creatures or make them suffer, but it means that people may use animals for the welfare of humanity. It is morally right since the majority of people recognize ethical and moral right to eat animal meat. According to the Bible, humanity is the highest destination, and animals must serve people. Nevertheless, respectful and polite attitude toward living creatures is essential. However, the protest of radical activists made the government change the system and procedure of animal experimentations. The Basel Declaration in 2010 made a conclusion that animal experimentations are necessary and must be continued but only when they are essential and with the smallest damage for animal life (Sepahban 24).
I like animals very much, especially small mice or kittens and dogs. They are extremely nice. It was quite hard for me to understand that these innocent creatures can suffer or die in the scientific laboratory for human welfare. It seemed to me cruel and unfair. However, after this problem exploration, I made a conclusion that nature made animals lower in all aspects of live, it concerns evolution and hierarchy. It does not mean that humans have a moral right to make animals suffer or treat them cruelly. It is natural law, when a wolf can kill a hare or a cat can catch a mouse. Thus, a human being may full fill the same laws and natural processes, since animal’s life is destined to serve humanity. Moreover, laws regulate scientific researchers and control their procedure to make it more humane and avoid any kind of useless death. Therefore, in my perspective, animal testing and experimentations are necessary for the modern world, as they help to protect people from fatal consequences and improve science in general. It is natural and normal for me, though scientists should not abuse their possibilities and avoid beasts’ suffering. Consequently, I support animal testing and experimentations, since the suffering of an animal is more appropriate than a child.
Thus, scientific researches and experiments based on the living creatures is the object of different arguments. People around the world create some organizations with the intention to stop inhuman cruelty and animals’ suffering. They justified animal rights and demand experiments’ prohibition. Some radical activists lead quite aggressive politic and insist on testing abolition, because animals should have a right to life and should not die for people’s welfare. Nevertheless, scientists and supporters of the opposite ideas give more fundamental arguments. They protect the law of a living creature’s researches, as they are the most precise and give the most accurate results. It is possible to make a conclusion that these experimentations can improve modern medicine, and their positive results are more important than harm from them.
Reflective Cover Memo
I have chosen the topic about animal testing and explorations. It was not an accidental choice, because this problem seems to me quite important. Activists try to protect animal rights and do not notice that everyday life of a human gives more damage for beasts that science, which has really positive intentions. Thus, I wanted to regard this problem giving evidential arguments. My writing process for this paper took a few days, as I had to find necessary materials, read some books and take a look at this issue from both perspectives. I have used the information only from the credible sources. Then, I constructed the plan of my paper and formed the arguments with the confirmation in the books and in the websites of organizations. However, I would change the structure of the paper and make it bigger, since I have found many interesting details and books. It would be even more interesting to visit the laboratory of animal researches and strengthen the paper with photos or information from interviews. In general, I believe that my paper is fundamental. I used only the most important arguments, which can convince a person or compel at least to change one’s mind; it is the strength of my paper. On the other hand, it is possible to assume that the weakness of it is the thesis and supporting arguments, because it may seem for some activists too controversial and cruel. Thus, I took the risk to regard quite a rational position. This paper may cause some doubtful feelings, because it is hard to recognize the necessity of researches on animals when the pictures of innocent creatures testing provoke desolation and grief. That is why some readers can find the research paper too provocative, which support inhuman attitude toward animals. However, I can make a conclusion that I had a purpose to conduct research and give significant evidential arguments, which confirm the necessity of testing.