• Home
  • Finance & Accounting
  • My Topic is Animal Studies" and this is my thesis,"Animal Testing is cruel and not justified" I dont have a hard copy, i am struggling to write an essay because of other assignments as well, and would like the service to help me with one. T

My Topic is Animal Studies" and this is my thesis,"Animal Testing is cruel and not justified" I dont have a hard copy, i am struggling to write an essay because of other assignments as well, and would like the service to help me with one. T Example


century, researchers, scholars and the general public arrived at a vague consensus that animals used in testing (research) ought to be treated in a humane way (Rollin,1990). Opinions regarding humane treatment vary in their starting assumptions with theoretical deliberations as to whether use of animals is an issue of ethics, by any means. The practice of animal testing is therefore a controversial topic within the contemporary society. This particular essay will therefore analyze whether animal testing is cruel and not justified.thThe use of animals in carrying out research is believed to have a long and successful history. Life-saving medicine and techniques for humans and other animals have been perfected owing to the use of animal models in conducting research. However, the history is also weighed down by claims of animal abuse -some alleged and some true. Throughout the 20

According to the Speak out for Species Organization (2011), a large number of animal advocates are against animal testing on ethical reasons, arguing that it is ethically wrong to harm a particular species with the hopes of benefiting another. Besides this ethical stand, there are serious health and scientific issues involved as well. The Speak out for Species Organization (2011) highlights that animal testing has led us down countless scientific dead ends by diverting attention as well as funds from more relevant scientific techniques. In actual fact, animal testing never assures that medications and other products will be effective for humans.

The latest reviews of ten randomly selected animal models of human disease established little, if any, contribution towards treatment of patients. The complexity for such researchers is therefore that unnaturally induced disease in animals is by no means identical to the naturally occurring disorders in humans, making animal testing a logically faulty process, and therefore perceived as animal abuse. Furthermore, all medications that have been taken out of the market on because they caused serious illness and death in human patients were in the past tested on other animals (IdeaConnection 2007).

According to the Speak out for Species Organization (2011), the practice of animal testing is therefore continuing not because it is the most accurate or dependable means of conducting research, but because of tradition as well as massive promotion from individuals with strong vested interests. As a result, they question its necessity arguing that it is a cruel and a poor scientific practice that cannot reliably predict effects in human beings. In addition, the Speak out for Species Organization (2011) argues that the practice is poorly regulated with its costs outweighing the benefits. Animals have therefore an intrinsic right not to be used for testing; as a result this kind of practice is perceived as animal abuse.

On the other hand, advocates of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, contend that nearly every medical achievement attained within the 20th century relied on the use of animals
in one way or another, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences contending that even the most sophisticated computers are not able to model interactions between
molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms and the environment, making animal testing essential in some areas
(Animal Welfare and Rights, 2011).

According to the advocates of the practice therefore, the development of medical as well as scientific goals by employing the use animal testing is justifiable as long as the testing minimizes suffering and animal use. Medical researches would also not be possible without animal testing practices.Moreover; most researchers are presently treating their animals well in addition to observing voluntary codes. Domestic committees are also monitoring research with institutions being subjected to government inspection.

The International Debate Education Association (2011) on the other hand, argues that animals ought to have same basic rights that human beings enjoy. According to the International Debate Education Association (2011), the practice of conducting tests in animals generally occurs in view of developing a cost-benefit model. For all intents and purposes, if the gains of the practice to humans seem high, then it is viewed as being worth the costs to animals.

Animal testing is therefore cruel and not justified.For instance, it is seen that if animal testing (research) is to be expected to save the lives of a large number of humans that it is meaningful. It can also therefore be contended that all sentient creatures have the same rights. In this case, the costs to animals will be seen to be as important as costs to humans. There are therefore no moral grounds for making higher the interests of a given species over another as this is specieism.

However, advocates of this practice argue that animals do not possess rights as they have no moral judgment. They argue that the capability to reason in addition to expressing a free will is fundamental to rights. This is based on the fact that rights require individuals to be capable of responsibility. Animals are not able to make moral claims, and so cannot claim rights (Cohen, 1986).

Cohen (1986) argues that rights come up, and can be wisely defended, only among human beings who in reality do, or are capable of making moral claims against one another. Animals lack the capacity to make free moral judgements. They therefore have no rights, and they can have none. Humans being the holders of the rights have therefore the capacity to understand the rules of duty, governing all including themselves.

Animals are not morally self-legislative and cannot probably be members of a truly moral community, as a result cannot possess rights. In carrying out tests (research) on animal subjects, therefore, humans do not violate their rights, since they have none to violate. Cohen (1986) argues therefore that we must not conclude, therefore, that a live life form has, simply in being alive, a right to its life. For this reason, it is wrong to argue that animal testing is cruel and not justified.

On the other hand, according to the Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (1992), animal testing is cruel and not justified. The fact that animals are not human does not mean that they do not feel pain, suffering, shock and despair, to some extent as we do. Imposing torturous procedures on animals by humans so as to save themselves the pain is morally irresponsible at best, as well as being arrogant to the point of hubris at worst.

As humans do not own these creatures, they have no intrinsic rights to subject them against their will to what they themselves identify as more inhumane practices, to any further extent than they have a right to make animals suffer for their amusement. The question that may therefore be posed is: “What makes it morally acceptable for human beings to seize other being’s freedom and life away from them, solely to possibly enhance their quality of lives, but more possibly suffer much as humans themselves would suffer, without discernable, beneficial results?”And worse, up until recently, the practice of animal testing was not exclusively set aside for matters of life and death or even human being health, but humans tested animals so as to determine the likely dangers of using cosmetic products
(Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, 1992). Animal testing is therefore cruel and unjustified, and ought to be perceived as animal abuse.

Contrary to the assumption that animal testing is cruel and not justified,
XingQingZhongRen (2007) argues that the many propositions by animal advocates against the practice of animal testing seem kind but not realistic. XingQingZhongRen (2007) highlights that animals should not be considered to be at the same level as human beings. XingQingZhongRen (2007) further contends that laws in humans’ world guarantees that every individual has a right not to be hurt. Consequently, if it should be assumed that the application is also appropriate in the animals’ world, then scientists ought not to be allowed to use animals for testing (experiments).

However, if animals’ rights of not being hurt are to be protected, then it implies that we had by now broken the laws of nature, in keeping with the logic that wild animals ought not to be allowed to capture and hurt other animals for their food. If this should be the case, then how could they provide food for them? It is believable that animals do not have senses of responsibility unlike humans; therefore they ought not to have the same as humans (XingQingZhongRen, 2007).

Based on this, using animals to carry out scientific experiments ought not to be condemned, especially from the animal rights angle since the definition of animals and human rights are very different. Unlike harming animals, the use of animals for the purposes of medical scientific research has a more significant and essential purpose. Under no circumstances can we hurt animals without meaningful purposes, and we should spare no efforts to take care of them. The reality; however is that we are compelled to hurt them when conducting a research on them. There is no doubt that the practice is really unfair to animals, but there is no other choice as an alternative.

Also in support of the proposition that animal testing is cruel and unjustified, the National Anti-vivisection Society (2004) argues that despite the fact that scientists have continued carrying out and defending animal testing, there is no doubt that there are insurmountable evidence, even from the scientific community, that it provides insignificant results. The National Anti-vivisection Society (2004) argues that suggestions by scientists in support of the practice are many and varied, but they all lead us to the same path: money.

The National Anti-vivisection Society (2004) further argues that even though the practice of animal testing has been proved to be a faulty methodology, the practice of using animals to establish whether cosmetic products are harmful, for instance, continues simply because it acts in the best financial interests of researchers, in addition to a number of other bodies(Association Defending Animal Rights, 2010).These bodies include pharmaceutical companies, universities, scientific journals, animal breeders, lawyers, regulation bureaucrats and even the media. All of them benefit either directly or indirectly from animal testing or research, and are therefore totally committed to a maintaining the status quo.

Thousands of animals are, for instance, intoxicated, ulcerated and blinded in testing cosmetic products such as
sun products, eye shadows, soaps,
nail polishes, moisturizers, etc. (Association Defending Animal Rights, 2010). This is considered totally cruel and justified to use as well as cause suffering to animals, merely to produce and commercialize these products.

Although profit is most likely the greatest motivation for researchers to carry out animal research, it is not the only one. People and the society are normally resistant to change. People have always done things the same way, it is therefore doubtful that they will change unless something catastrophic comes about to make them change. Many researchers are rooted in traditions, and traditions tell them that animal testing (research) is a suitable method of investigation (National Anti-vivisection Society, 2004).

Moreover large educational institutions reward convention over innovation, as a result, creative thinking is generally not well received within the hallowed halls of science. Those researchers who are aware of the irrelevance of animal testing are quickly silenced. Those who decline to be silenced do so at great career peril. Individuals who carry out the practice of animal testing have also published many papers in the scientific literature.

Their entire self-image is that of animal researcher and if their importance is taken away, in respect to their publications, their self-worth will tumble. Most of them will not allow that to happen. Given this, Pound et.al (2004) argues therefore that public accepts animal testing only on the supposition that it profits humans. As a result, clinical relevance of animal testing calls for urgent clarification.


It is without a doubt that the practice of animal testing is a controversial topic within our contemporary society. For this reason, it appears somehow difficult to make a conclusion as to whether it is cruel and unjustified.However, in my opinion; I would support the progress of medical and scientific goals using animal testing as long as the testing is conducted in a way that minimizes the use of animals and their sufferings. On the hand, the suggestions brought out by animal advocates may seem kind but not realistic as they disregard the fact that it is impractical to empower same rights to human and animals. Furthermore, the use of animals for the purposes of medical scientific research has a more significant and essential purpose, and medical researches would also not be possible without animal testing practices.


Association Defending Animal Rights, 2010, Experimenting with Animals, Retrieved on May 28 from http://www.addaong.org/eng/que_9.html

Animal Welfare and Rights, 2011, Animal Welfare Issues.

Cohen, C, 1986, Why Animals have no rights. The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research. The New England Journal of Medicine.

IdeaConnection, 2007, Cruel Treatment of Animals for Research, Retrieved on May 28 from http://www.ideaconnection.com/solutions/506-Cruel-treatment-of-animals-for-research.html

International Debate Education Association, 2011, Debate: Animal Testing: Is It Morally Acceptable To Experiment On Animals For Human Purposes? Retrieved on May 28 from http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Animal_testing

National Anti-vivisection Society, 2004, Animals in Scientific Research: Why Scientists Defend Animal Research, Retrieved on May 28 from


Pound, P, Ebrahim, S, Sandercock, P & Roberts, I, 2004, Education and Debate: Where is the Evidence that Animal Research benefits Humans?

Rollin, B, 1990, The Experimental Animal in Biomedical Research, Vol. 1, A Survey of Scientific and Ethical Issues for Investigators, Boca Raton, CRC Press,Pp27.

Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, 1992, The Well-being of Agricultural Animals in Biomedical and Agricultural Research: Proceedings from a SCAW-sponsored Conference, Agricultural Animals in Research, held September 6-7, 1990 in Washington, D.C., with additional Material provided by the Authors, Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.

Speak out for Species Organization, 2011, Animals used in Experiments: Problems with Animal Experimentation, Retrieved on May 28 from http://www.uga.edu/sos/experiments.html

XingQingZhongRen (2007), Animals should be used in the Scientific Experiment, Retrieved on May 28 from