Animal Testing Negatives Research Paper

Pages: 7 (2261 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 7  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Animals

Abusing animals in testing laboratories is unavoidable even if the researchers take utmost care to prevent them. Numerous studies by scientists and ethicists have shown that animal testing leads to pain, emotional distress, and post-traumatic stress syndrome due to invasive procedures, deprivation of basic physiological and environmental needs, disease, and social isolation. The loss of ability to fulfill natural needs also puts animals in stressful and painful conditions. But while medical research operates on a principle that human needs to be protected even for the detriment of scientific progress, when it comes to animal research questions, they are guided by the principle that puts scientific question ahead of animal interests (Fewdowsian and Beck 2). In a recent controversial study published by the journal Nature Methods, researchers used numerous abusive methods to prove that mice can feel pain. Fewdowsian explains the chilling and cruel methods used by researchers before they measured the level of pain expressed by mice in a specifically developed Mouse Grimace Scale: "They immersed the animals' tails in hot water, used radiant heat on them, attached a binder clip to their tails, injected irritants into their feet, induced bladder inflammation with a chemical that causes painful cystitis in humans, and injected acetic acid, causing the mice to develop abdominal constriction and writhe. They performed surgery on the mice and did not provide postoperative analgesics" (Fewdowsian). It is also important to note that rats, rodents, rabbits, and mice are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act in the United States. Given this level of abuse inflicted on animals and also considering that there are numerous alternatives available such as the ones based on nanotechnology and stem cell science that are being ignored due to the convenience of testing on animals (Dove; Dolgin; Liebsch et al.), there is no ethical justification for carrying laboratory testing and research on animals today.

Research Paper on Animal Testing Negatives of Animal Assignment

This is not to say that no experiment can be conducted on animals. Tests and experiments are sometimes directly conducted on humans, too. But the testing on animals must be guided by the same principle that guides human experiments, i.e. "without treating the interests of animals as less weighty than those of humans" and if the evidences show that "the benefits of an experiment on an animal would outweigh the costs to the animal" (Singer). It is utterly hypocritical of scientists who reject the Biblical story of creation and embrace Darwinian theory of evolution when it suits them, but when it comes to principles that should guide animal testing, they reject the latter in favor of the former. What is the scientific, objective, and verifiable evidence showing that human interests weigh greater than those of animals? Scientists know very well that there is not a shred of evidence to support this claim -- other than the fact that humans are selfish, greedy, and suffer from "speciesism' -- a prejudice against beings that are not members of our own species, and similar in many respects to racist and sexist prejudices against beings who are not members of a dominant race or sex" (Singer). Absent this speciesist prejudice, there is no doubt that the negatives of animal testing outweigh its benefits and therefore should be banned.

Works Cited:

Dolgin, Elie. "Animal Testing Alternatives Come Alive In U.S.." Nature Medicine 16.12 (2010): 1348. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Dove, Alan. "The Search For Animal Alternatives. (Cover Story)." Drug Discovery & Development 13.4 (2010): 10-13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 May 2012.

FERDOWSIAN, HOPE. "Why We Need Alternatives." Chronicle Of Higher Education 57.12 (2010): B9-B10. Professional Development Collection. Web. 7 May 2012.

Ferdowsian, Hope R, and Nancy Beck. "Ethical And Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing And Research." Plos One 6.9 (2011): e24059. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Garber, Ken. "Realistic Rodents? Debate Grows Over New Mouse Models Of Cancer." Journal Of The National Cancer Institute 98.17 (2006): 1176-1178. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Liebsch, Manfred, et al. "Alternatives To Animal Testing: Current Status And Future Perspectives." Archives Of Toxicology 85.8 (2011): 841-858. MEDLINE. Web. 7 May 2012.

Mogil, Jeffrey S., Karen D. Davis, and Stuart W. Derbyshire. "The Necessity Of Animal Models In Pain Research." Pain (03043959) 151.1 (2010): 12-17. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 May 2012.

PYCROFT, LAURIE and MARSTON, HELEN. "Is Animal Testing Necessary To Advance Medical Research?." New Internationalist 444 (2011): 34. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 7 May 2012.

Roberts, Ian et al. "Where Is The Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?."… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (7 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Animal Testing Animal Models Are Faulty Indicators Essay

Animals for Research Because it Is Cruel Term Paper

Animal Cruelty Early Signs of Violence Research Proposal

Negative Effects of Television on Children Research Paper

Testing Assessment Thesis

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Animal Testing Negatives" Research Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Animal Testing Negatives.  (2012, May 7).  Retrieved June 24, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Animal Testing Negatives."  7 May 2012.  Web.  24 June 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Animal Testing Negatives."  May 7, 2012.  Accessed June 24, 2021.