Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds.
Instead, all they can do is sit and wait in fear of the next terrifying and painful procedure that will be performed on them. The stress, sterility and boredom causes some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth and even pulling out their own hair and biting their own skin. They shake and cower in fear whenever someone walks past their cages and their blood pressure spikes drastically. After enduring lives of pain, loneliness and terror, almost all of them will be killed.
More than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments. Exact numbers aren't available because mice, rats, birds and cold-blooded animals—who make up more than 95 percent of animals used in experiments—are not covered by even the minimal protections of the Animal Welfare Act and therefore go uncounted. To test cosmetics, household cleaners, and other consumer products, hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year by cruel corporations. Mice and rats are forced to inhale toxic fumes, dogs are force-fed pesticides, and rabbits have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes. Many of these tests are not even required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results; even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to you. Cruel and deadly toxicity tests are also conducted as part of massive regulatory testing programs that are often funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and the Department of Agriculture are just a few of the government agencies that subject animals to painful and crude tests.
The federal government and many health charities waste precious dollars from taxpayers and generous donors on cruel and misleading animal experiments at universities and private laboratories instead of spending them on promising clinical, in vitro and epidemiological studies that are actually relevant to humans.
Millions of animals also suffer and die for classroom biology experiments and dissections, even though modern alternatives have repeatedly been shown to teach students better, save teachers time and save schools money.
Each of us can help save animals from suffering and death in experiments by demanding that our alma maters stop experimenting on animals, by buying cruelty-free products, by donating only to charities that don't experiment on animals, by requesting alternatives to animal dissection and by demanding the immediate implementation of humane, effective non-animal tests by government agencies and corporations.
Some questions to consider (but not limited to.) Please do indicate where YOU stand.
1. Should animals be used in this way? Only some animals?
2. Are there some exceptions (either way) and why?
3. Is this kind of question suitable for this blog?
4. Can you add something to the discussion?
5. Should courts, voters, or congress decide this kind of issue?
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/default.aspx
Animals, in my opinion, should not be used in this way, it is very cruel. Testing animals for results (for help for testers) where they could be killed is horrible. As mentioned in the article, people waste money on misleading experiments that don't result in anything sufficient or useful. They can spend this money on studies that are actually related to humans. I mean there might be one exception for doing these cruel tests on animals that are in horrible places. The one thing that might be a possible exception would be to test animals that have odd or weird diseases that nobody knows what the matter is. It would have to be a sufficient test testing that particular disease. However, this testing occurring is in my opinion terrible to animals and people who enjoy animals are disgusted by this.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this article exposes terrible things that are going on in the world, it also exposes just how weak our defenses to this kind of thing are. Animals everywhere are powerless and voiceless to defend themselves against these painful and sometimes unnecessary tests. The only way any of them will have a voice is if humans like you or I speak out for them! However, I would also like to quote someone who takes the opposite view. The person I talked to said "if we did not test animals then we would have to go straight to testing people, is that better? So many more people would be killed without this and I human life is more important then an animal life!" Well, in response to that, these things could not legally be done to people as they can be to animals (although as we have seen that does not stop all the testing.) But humans can resist and they must also be informed of the risks of the experiment before they participate. (although that too is sometimes avoided) However animals and humans are very different. They have different systems than us, and they react differently to drugs and treatments. If the results that we get when we test animals are not needed and not conclusive, then why do we test them at all?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think this article is highly biased and misleading as to the true reasons and results behind animal testing. While (as it says) animals are different than humans, this does not mean that test results are completely irrelevant to future human users of said drug or lotion. As of now, the non - animal tests the article mentioned are not nearly sophisticated enough to provide a reliable result, leaving animal testing as the only solution. Rather than being useless, these results have already been used in the past to help find a cure for rabies, polio, rubella, and tuberculosis, among others.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a moral side to this issue. The truth is, animals have feelings at some level, just like people. Thus, by extension, this exploitation of the weak and defenseless is like slavery, or worse.
Nevertheless, at the end of the day, it's either a tradeoff between human suffering, or that of a rat. Which one do you value more? Probably the human's.
In response to Becky's comment, if it is not legal to test on human subjects, then who will be tested? Will you condemn the world to disease to spare the life of a rat? So call me a utilitarianist, heartless, but I think in the case of medicine, the ends do justify the means, and it should be okay to test drugs on animals.
Two last things - first of all, for anything besides medicinal purposes, the idea of animal testing is ridiculous. Why would you torture thousands of animals just to have better looking skin?
Secondly, for those who not only eat meat but also say that animal testing is cruel, how do you justify eating meat?
While I too am incredibly opposed to animal testing, especially after the vivid, if a bit biased, imagery this article provides, I would just like to put out there that I understand the alternate point of view. As Becky mentioned someone said, a lot of these products need to be tested somehow, and it’s a lot harder to get human volunteers. Many of these products would be to benefit humans - if they are for medicinal purposes, then the testing could contribute to a result that could save lives. But that’s kind of the point. I would say that it is a general consensus that testing should not be performed without permission. When applying this to animals, it tends to be overlooked, because of course we cannot communicate with the animals, but if humans would not want to do it, animals definitely wouldn’t want this testing, because they get treated less humanely than humans would be and this product does not benefit them. Humans are the ones benefiting from this testing - they should be the ones making the sacrifices. An animal probably doesn’t care about risking its own life to save humans - humans definitely don’t care about saving animals, as shown by this kind of testing. It’s humans who should have at least some compassion towards helping their own race. Also, these products are likely to react differently with humans, so it’s just unnecessary cruelty to test animals. I think that there should be no exceptions - perhaps for developing medical treatment, but that is where it is important to have human volunteers actually because diseases take different forms in different species.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of this arguement. While testing animals is a terrible thing, getting human subjects is incredibly hard, and some of these experiments are crucial ones that need to be done. However, I see no purpose in conducting these experiments that have no purpose on small animals that just want to live. Also, as Megan said, diseases will take different forms in humans than in animals, so really, I don't know why so many animals are used, if the experiments in the end will affect humans
ReplyDeleteThe examples used in this case are particularly horrendous (corrosive chemicals, toxic fumes etc). There are some cases, however, in which it is so important to use animals, and there are many medical and psychological discoveries that would not have been made without the use of animals. More then 2/3 of the research projects that led to Nobel Prizes in medicine were on animals. Many are incredibly important for science, such as antibiotics, and vaccines for smallpox, tetanus and measles. People are trying really hard to reduce reliance on animals, and all scientific experiments have to pass the 'Ethics and Animal Welfare Committee' before approval. There should be very strong restrictions on using animals, and they should not be kept in cages or whatever gruesome devices that were mentioned above, but I think it is necessary in some cases to use animals in science.
ReplyDeleteThe standards for animal welfare in testing are much better than the standards for animals for meat. Most people in this school, at dinner tonight, will go home and eat chicken, or steak or some other meat that I do not know the name of. That animal probably will not have had a great life. Just as stated in the article about testing animals, it will have been born to die, and unless you get super fancy free range meat (which isn't always as free range as it says) the animal will probably have faced many of the agonies of confinement and mistreatment that are mentioned above. Why is this any different from testing? Perhaps it's because we can only criticize that which we are not part of?
My first opinion of this article was that it was very biased. I think that, with this article, the authors were crying out for help. It was written just to persuade the others who were thinking differently into the same mindset as the writers. I agree that it is very cruel to be killing something that was created to live life on this earth for the benefit of humans. But, like Arron said, I think many people would prefer a human’s live over a mere animal. If the practice is absolutely necessary (finding a cure for a life threatening disease) then I have to accept that the practice is happening for the greater good, helping the human race. But if it is to test the new Proactive acne fighting solution or Covergirl makeup, then testing it on animals is inappropriate. I think there should be voters for every testing, to determine if testing the product on the animal is fair or not. This isn’t as big of an issue as the article projected so I don’t think it’s necessary to get the court, judges and the whole package involved. It is simply the wise decision making of the companies that determine if an animal is harmed or not during a testing, though it is true that protesters might make a small impact.
ReplyDeleteI believe this article is incredibly biased, for it is mostly stating facts against scientific studies; they have exaggerated the truth of their condition, and it's not like the FDA and other "cruel" coporations are killing animals for leisure! The only part I'm agreeing with is that animals are being wasted and killed from useless studies for cosmetics and other household products. There is no need to have a better looking face in exchange for the lives of hundreds of animals. Reasearch should be more focused on medical studies such as a cure for cancer. It is also very hard to find human subjects, for I doubt nobody would want to die or have horrible side effects. Medical research can't advance if we stop testing on animals.
ReplyDeleteEven though i am opposed to this type of thing, this article blows stuff way out of proportion. even though they are being used as test subjects, a lot of the time it is for the betterment of human society. would you rather kill 2 rats than have 100 people killed because the medicine did not react in the way the scientists had hoped? yes it is a horrible thing to do and it is self centered for me to say that but i would rather have two rats die.
ReplyDeleteIt is just terrible when I am reminded of the animal cruelty that has to do with chemical testing and the like. I do agree with Lehman that this article blows things out of proportion and about the rats dying. I think that this should be ended and there should be no exceptions whatsoever. If anything like this is going to happen congress should have to vote on it because as long sometimes in contracts the testing companies write there are loopholes, although currently this should be dealt with by the government or some designated group so it won't happen again.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very biased, but I too believe that animal testing is wrong and should be illegal in the US. The fact that companies are worried that their products may have a wrongful affect on humans should make it clear that it probably will have an affect on animals too. But when it comes to medical testing, this matter is different. We need vaccines to be able to protect ourselves from diseases and infections, and the only “safe” way to test vaccines is by putting it into a human or animal. Though infecting an animal with the disease being tested it wrong, there isn’t much doctors and scientists can do with out being harassed by the FDA or EPA. While I believe that animal testing for cosmetics is wrong, when it comes to safety and health related issues, sometimes the only way to be sure that the vaccine is safe is by testing on animals. Congress should vote on this issue so that there will be a quota on which companies can follow, such as cosmetic and food companies should try and use natural or organic products in their products so that they don’t need to test what happens to animals.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this article may be true for certain companies and very extreme cases, it may not be providing all the necessary facts. Many tests are actually beneficial to the public, as some products may actually be toxic. Although it is cruel to animals, it is for the sake of the general wellbeing of the consumer.
ReplyDeleteThis article was made to convince, but it is using biased statements in order to do so. Testing on animals, if it serves a purpose, it no different from how they are treated in farms and fast food restraunt chains. Remember that when you eat at McDonalds, that hamburger might be made from cows that live only to be fattened then slaughtered. Rather than trying to stop huge corporacies from exploiting animals for profit, it is more helpful to save HUMANS who are being mistreated.
I think that animals should be used in this way. Drug testing has to go on, and tests on live subjects, to see the effects. I would much rather have that done to animals than done to humans. If a company has refined the product to a point where they cannot proceed without testing, it has to be done to better human lives. I think that this question is suitable for the blog, but not this specific article because of the bias it creates with its adjectives. At this time, this question should not be decided by voters or congress, when the country is struggling out of a recession. There are larger problems for this country to face.
ReplyDeleteThis article shows animal testing to its cruelest extent. It is very biased, however testing on animals is without a doubt a terrible thing. Animals should not have to go through that kind of treatment. There are some benefits to testing on animals even though this article does not show it. Without animal experimentation people wouldn't be able to test if there products are safe for human use and without testing on animals these chemicals and things can be harmful to us, and these things have to be tested somehow. Experimentation on animals definitely has two sides. There is the side that this article shows which demonstrates the down side of animal testing, and there is also the other side which shows us that without animal experimentation products can be harmful to us. In my opinion it's basically a lose lose situation. Therefore I don't believe that there is much that can be done for a topic as this. It can’t be taken away but it is sad for animals to be treated this way.
ReplyDeleteI don't support animal cruelty, but I feel like this article is a little short-sited. Using animals to test products on isn't the best way to use animals, but if we don't test the products on animals, what do we test them on? Bushes?! We can't test on humans due to certain laws that require consent forms and other certain liabilities. For the past few years I have either heard or read stories about how animals should be treated as humans, and I do think that the cats, dogs, primates, and rabbits should be treated better. The mice and rats on the other hand, I'm not one to fight for their case. I don't particularly like mice or rats, and I feel like these animals have always been the typical "lab rat." Now, I am sure if someone had a pet rat and disliked cats, they would feel differently, but the question did ask how I felt about it. That's why this article is so biased. Everyone has a different look at this subject, and not one person is right, so I really hope that no one looks at me like I am a jerk, because I was just expressing my opinion. I think because this article is so biased it isn't really suitable for the blog becuase not one person is right. It is all opions. Not to say that the other two articles aren't, but I feel like this article doesn't create such a good discussion due to the fact that everyone will just end up screaming at eachother because opinions clash.
ReplyDeleteThis article made me realize what is really going on when it comes to testing animals. I didn’t quite understand what it meant when people were saying, “this shampoo is not tested on animals!” and those sorts of things. I just chose the shampoos that I normally used. Now that I read this article I understand what is happening to some animals and it is terrible. Animals should not be used in this way. I think some people forget that animals aren’t toys; they’re living things. The fact that some animals start to become abnormal and perform weird behaviors disgusts me. It is strange to think that a person has done something to an animal to make them different from what they used to be. Overall I think it is really mean and cruel to test animals but how will this law be changed? I can’t think of any possibilities on what these scientists could do instead. These scientists just need to stop.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this article, I had acknowledged, as well as completely agreed upon, the fact that testing animals for human products was out of the question. While I was reading, however, I realized that this article was one of the most unreliable sources on this topic. It was not the things that were said; it was the way the article repeated adjectives like "cruel" that made me to argue with what it said. Right now, I still believe that killing animals to test unnecessary products, such as gels, is immoral. Different products nevertheless are mandatory for some people. For example, lotion can be essential to those whose skin is cracking and bleeding. These types of products can be tested directly on humans. Then again, untested drugs designed to cure a certain disease should be tested on animals. I essentially agree with those who say that one rat's life is worth it if it can save thousands in the future. Some people said results are inaccurate, but I must disagree that no one can claim inaccuracy because results can aid in the improvement of products. Many results help scientists know which ingredients to change in beneficial drugs, or allow dermatologists to discover alternate methods to cure skin infections. Saying that animals are different enough from humans that testing them is not at all relevant to us is not true. The results may vary slightly, but it would not be so extreme that the results do not benefit anyone's knowledge. This article expresses the palpable concern for animal testing and what harm it does to the animals which are tested. What the article did not do was give the bigger picture of testing. It described one side, and that was the horror of this process. What about the other? Some treatments just cannot be tested on humans, so the only other option closest to humans is animals. It is not safe for everyone if animal testing is ceased because it can advance the effectiveness of medicine and treatments, but the amount of testing should be cut down.
ReplyDeleteI have known about animal cruelty for a long time, and this article did further educate me on the issue. Although the article was biased, I still believe that testing on animals is wrong. But it really does depend on what you are testing. Harmful pesticides and other chemicals tested on animals should be completely illegal. There should be designated animals for this testing, because we need animal testing to make sure that everyone is more safe. Also, I am not sure how much of taxpayer's dollars are being spent on this testing, but the idea of it is pretty ridiculous. People deserve to know where their money is going, and clearly this is not a place where the people of the US's earned money should be going.
ReplyDeleteThough I do feel this article is very heartfelt, and brings up some gut-wrenching points, it does not allow you to consider the other side of things. On who or what else would we test these products on? Should humans be subjected to trying drugs before they are placed in general circulation? No one seems very bothered by the fact that humans participate in drug tests and trials all the time, but because it is an adorable baby bunny, suddenly everyone cares? Yes, I feel sorry for the animals being tested to find a cure for cancer, but I would feel even sorrier for the patient dying because of the lack of a cure. I'm sure all of us have taken anti-biotics and medicines before. They probably helped all of us a great deal at the time. Everyone is always praising modern medicine, and people even win prizes for discoveries made in the field. We all hold these people with high regard. Do you really think many of these people developed or tested these ideas without the help of animals? I ask you one question, who would you rather see die; you or a rat or mouse?
ReplyDeleteI don't exactly like to hear that animals are being hurt with these so called "useless insufficient experiments.' But people are overlooking (once again) the fact that these tests give tons of valid information to scientists about very important things that all of us may not be aware of. I mean for all we know, they can be testing reactions on certain chemicals to protect the human race. Some of these tests have been so informative and helpful to scientists and have most likely saved tons of lives! There has got to be some sacrifice for us humans to prosper the way we have. We are all speaking with little knowledge of this topic; I do not think it is fair to reject these tests and claim they are harmful to the animals when it is for a good cause. Someone has to take the beating. And in this case they are the animals. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE animals, but creatures die without us (humans) not even noticing. To be frank, the only reason we are pitying these animals is because they are in an article that we are all reading. Aside from all of this criticism, I do think that their should be a law passed stating that experiments should only be conducted on animals for valid reasons or certain tests. This article is super biased and only emphasizing one part of the story. If only there was an article about what good comes out of these experiments.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that this article is biased, but in the end, it has justice on its side. Animals, even though they do not have some qualities that we as humans have, should not be so poorly treated for testing. I would love to know what products they are using on those animals and how many people even buy them in the end! First of all, before there were so many crazy chemicals, pets were still thriving and "tests" and "experiments" weren't at all necessary. Why are they necessary now? I do not think that any experiments should be conducted on these poor animals because there is no real way to describe "valid" (in response to Husayn's post). In fact, tests should not be conducted on animals because they do not have a fair say. So what if we don't have enough data? Are these tests a matter of life and death in our society? We, as the human population, were perfectly fine without these tests.
ReplyDeleteThat is all.
~D
After reading this article for the first time, i was horrified by the way these animals are being treated. I then went back and read it a second time, and realized that it was extremely biased. Half of it was opinion and only the other 50 percent was solid facts. This contradicts what we learned in class when doing the Hakluyt/Harrison essay- that any adjectives and some verbs cannot be used because they present the facts in a biased way. here are some words/phrases used in this article: "cold, barren, languish in pain, ache with loneliness, fear, terrifying, terror, cages, painful, stress, boredom, shake, cower". How is THAT not biased? I think that the world has the technology to test these products without using animals, but like many of the world's other problems, we do nothing to try to find a better solution. As for using animals for dissection, I disagree in some ways with this article. How would we know anything about these animals if we didn't find out how their bodies function? How would we be able to, for example, create medicine for pets if we did not know what they needed? As long as the animals are killed in a humane way, I think that this is completely acceptable.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that this testing is completely wrong. The main reason that you see companies doing this is because they are more worried about the nickels and the dimes then the safety of animals. There is no bias against animals, the reason for this abuse is simply because animals are cheaper to test than humans. There should be no testing on animals, and it should be done on willing human participants, but as long as greed runs the world as we know it this wont stop it. Animal rights groups do try to help situations like this, but so many of those groups are corrupt and probably take money to lay off. It's difficult to stop something when some of the people fighting against are in it to get bribed out of fighting it.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article and seeing the previous comments, it looks like most people are against animal testing. What I find interesting is that despite most people being against animal testing and cruelty, many people would not mind having their house exterminated which also kills many animals like mice and rats.
ReplyDeleteI think animal testing would is unnecessary for things such as cosmetic products, but when it comes to medicine, it has to be tested on something. It would be even more controversial to have human test subjects. I would rather have many rats die because of testing than have many humans die. I do think that testing should be improved so that these animals don't suffer as much, but don't think that it should stop entirely. What this article lacks is the pros of animal testing, and how it greatly helps scientific research and discoveries.
Animal testing is sadly needed for any advance in biological science in general, and for human medicine in particular. We would not have the the average human life-span, health benefits, or type of medicine we have today without the benefits of animal (and by animal, I think we mean mammals) testing. To think that we could have come as far as we have without this type of testing is ridiculous. Humans who suffer from deadly forms of cancer sign up for testing on things like possible future cancer cures, even when they know that they will not be around to benefit for the cure, but they do it for humankind. And of course, what we learn from other mammals used in science does benefit the care of other mammals as well as humans.
ReplyDeleteI realize that other mammals who are tested don't have a voice in whether or not they will be tested, which may seem unfair, and if all things were equal would be unfair, but all things aren't equal. We don't have practicing Chimpanzee or Gorilla scientists or veterinarians, yet we have plenty of human ones for Chimps and Gorillas, and most other mammals, because humans can learn and practice cures for other mammals. Of course, that doesn't mean we should just use any non-human mammal in any testing without good guidelines and ethics. Every effort should be made to make sure that animals don't suffer needlessly, and I think that most good scientists try to practice, and want to practice good animal care with their animals--just like they have to with their human subjects.
I'm not for animal testing in cosmetic testing, because I think cosmetics are stupid and unnecessary. But I can see why a head of a cosmetics company would test on animals for the safety of their products. I do think that if more cosmetic companies advertise that they don't use animal testing, and exactly what that means, then maybe they will get they attention they need get a larger piece of the cosmetics business.
I agree with many posts above that say this article doesn't nearly give enough information on the huge benefits of animal research and testing for all humans and other species as well.