Animal research papers

Physicianshealth and nutritionethical research & educationmedia centerlegislative focusclinical researcheducational position paper on animal ed by the pcrm board of directors, july 21, primary purpose of medical research is to promote human health, and the most direct research methods focus on the study of human populations, individuals, and tissues. Animal research has been used as an alternative method when the study of humans is deemed impractical or unethical, or when animal biology is of primary interest. Animals are frequently used in biological and medical research, in the testing of drugs and commercial products, and in educational exercises in the sciences. While the number of animals used in the united states is not known, estimates range into several tens of millions l concerns are raised by the use of animals in experimental studies, particularly when they are subjected to painful procedures or toxic exposures. These concerns are accentuated by studies showing marked stress responses in animals undergoing common laboratory procedures. Similarly, routine features of the laboratory environment—isolation, confinement, social disruption, noise, and restrictions on physical movement—have been shown to be noxious for animals. Together, these bodies of evidence indicate that even experiments that appear to be minimally invasive can be highly stressful for the animal subjects, and this finding applies to commonly used rodent species as well as larger and less frequently used animals. Research on immune function, endocrine and cardiovascular disorders, neoplasms, developmental defects, and psychological phenomena are particularly vulnerable to stress ing nonanimal l concerns have propelled the exploration of methods that replace animal use. Trauma training, once conducted almost universally using animals, is now commonly taught with simulators that are cheaper and are designed to more closely mimic critical aspects of patient august 2007, the us national research council published toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy,which described limitations of animal-based toxicology tests and proposed a new focus on non-animal methods that may present potential advantages over animal tests. In january 2008, the environmental protection agency and the national institutes of health’s national toxicology program and chemical genomics center signed a memorandum of understanding pledging joint funding and research for the replacement of animals in toxicology testing with nonanimal methods. Both documents support the concept that replacement of animal-based methods in toxicology promises practical benefits, aside from humane is incumbent on scientists and institutions using animals for research, testing, or educational purposes to actively investigate and implement alternatives. The federal animal welfare act regulations require that research personnel be trained in methods of searching for alternatives to animal use, and the nih guide for the care and use of laboratory animals encourages efforts to develop and use scientifically valid alternatives to animal research.

Research paper on animals

For example, nonanimal methods in medical education have already been implemented for a wide variety of applications at many medical schools, but are not yet in use at all institutions. For example, many laboratories produce monoclonal antibodies for research or diagnostic purposes by placing antibody-producing cells in the abdomen of animals, often causing significant pain and distress as the cells produce large amounts of fluid (ascites). While antibodies can also be produced by cellular techniques, there are major technical challenges in so doing for some cell ceutical testing presents challenges for the replacement of animal tests. While animal tests leave much to be desired as means of identifying drug-related risks, no alternative test methods are yet acceptable to the food and drug administration for many toxicology these cases, the most appropriate course of action is neither to assume that nonanimal methods will be easily produced nor to be resigned to the continued use of animals. Rather, it is incumbent on investigators and research-supporting institutions to make the replacement of animals a priority. For many applications, the replacement of animal use occurs most appropriately, not through a specific alternative method, but by a substantially different approach to the clinical problem at hand. For example, some research centers are assessing the toxic effects of recreational psychoactive drugs by testing them on animals. Another strategy relies on assessing their effects through noninvasive neurological and psychometric testing on humans who have been using such compounds need for discussion and address the ethical and practical issues raised by animal research, scientists and research-sponsoring institutions benefit from information sharing, discussion, and debate representing a wide variety of opinions. The environmental protection agency) and abroad dealing with animal testing issues have implemented policies that ensure that animal welfare advocates and scientists advocating for alternatives to animal tests are represented on scientific and regulatory recent years, it has become clear that viewpoints vary greatly on this issue and are highly mutable as new information comes forward. It is helpful to recognize that, generally speaking, implementing nonanimal methods is neither a simple matter nor a theoretical impossibility. While animal welfare considerations mandate a commitment to the replacement of animals, there are areas for which alternatives have not yet been developed or have not yet gained acceptance by regulatory bodies. In the course of scientific inquiry, many investigators have credited the use of animals with the elucidation of key points, and it remains a matter of conjecture as to whether the same discoveries could have been accomplished by other means.

In contrast, the use of animals in education has undergone dramatic changes in the past decade. Most medical schools have eliminated the use of animals from their curricula, and instructional methods at other educational levels have also evolved in the face of changing technologies. A reasonable viewpoint, we believe, is for investigators and institutions using animals to explore and implement nonanimal methods with all due haste and without limit, recognizing that in some cases the practical challenges inherent in doing so are should continue and expand collaborative efforts to address the need for alternatives to animal use. In cooperation with physicians at harvard university and the massachusetts general hospital, pcrm developed educational materials demonstrating clinical alternatives to animal use in medical instruction, and progress in implementing alternatives has been documented in surveys published by pcrm physicians in the journal of medical education and academic medicine. Pcrm physicians have published invited papers on animal research issues in scientific american and lancet oncology. These efforts complement pcrm’s primary research work, which focuses on clinical trials in human participants, and are enriched by communication and collaboration with other research process of replacing animals in research, testing, and education is supported by studies showing that routine laboratory procedures and typical laboratory environments are more stressful for animals than is commonly appreciated. Nonetheless, the challenges of replacing animals are often considerable, raising major scientific, economic, and regulatory exploration and implementation of nonanimal methods should be a priority for investigators and research institutions and should take advantage of a wide variety of viewpoints to ensure progress toward scientific, human health, and animal protection site does not provide medical or legal advice. Due to privacy concerns and the physicianshealth and nutritionethical research & educationmedia centerlegislative focusclinical researcheducational position paper on animal ed by the pcrm board of directors, july 21, primary purpose of medical research is to promote human health, and the most direct research methods focus on the study of human populations, individuals, and tissues. Due to privacy concerns and the medical research institutions make use of non-human animals as test subjects. Animals may be subject to experimentation or modified into conditions useful for gaining knowledge about human disease or for testing potential human treatments. Because animals as distant from humans as mice and rats share many physiological and genetic similarities with humans, animal experimentation can be tremendously helpful for furthering medical r, there is an ongoing debate about the ethics of animal experimentation. Some people argue that all animal experimentation should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for furthering knowledge.

According to this point of view, an animal should have as much right as a human being to live out a full life, free of pain and suffering. Others argue that while it is wrong to unnecessarily abuse animals, animal experimentation must continue because of the enormous scientific resource that animal models provide. Proponents of continued animal experimentation often also point out that progress can still be made to improve the conditions of laboratory animals and they fully support efforts to improve living conditions in laboratories, to use anesthesia appropriately, and to require trained personnel to handle closer scrutiny, there exists a wide range of positions on the debate over the ethics of animal testing. Usually, this middle view accepts experimentation on some, but not all, animals and aims to avoid unnecessary use of animals in scientific research by pursuing alternatives to animal following sections briefly outline a few of the arguments for and against animal experimentation. They are simply our effort to review and raise awareness of the underlying case against animal experimentationthe case for animal experimentationa middle case against animal experimentation^. Important part of the debate over animal rights centers on the question of the moral status of an animal. Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status – that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals. This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal. In modern times, the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much moral status they have and what rights come with that strongest pro animal rights answer to this question would be that non-human animals have exactly the same moral status as humans and are entitled to equal treatment. The ethicists who endorse this position do not mean that animals are entitled to the very same treatment as humans; arguing that animals should have the right to vote or hold office is clearly absurd. The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own common form of this argument claims that moral status comes from the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life. Therefore, they should have the same moral status and deserve equal ters of this type of argument frequently claim that granting animals less moral status than humans is just a form of prejudice called “speciesism.

Many animal rights advocates argue similarly—that just because we are human is not sufficient grounds to declare animals less morally case for animal experimentation^. They generally use this claim as the cornerstone of an argument that the benefits to humans from animal experimentation outweigh or “make up for” the harm done to animals. The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals. For example, in most human moral communities all individuals have the right to make independent decisions and live autonomous lives – and with that right comes the responsibility to respect others’ gh a moral community could theoretically include animals, it frequently does not. Since most animals do not have the cognitive capabilities of humans and also do not seem to possess full autonomy (animals do not rationally choose to pursue specific life goals), they are not included in the moral community. Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans have only a limited obligation towards them; on this argument, we certainly would not need to grant animals all normal human animals do not have the same rights as humans, it becomes permissible to use them for research purposes. Under this view, the ways in which experimentation might harm the animal are less morally significant than the potential human benefits from the problem with this type of argument is that many humans themselves do not actually fulfill the criteria for belonging to the human moral community. One philosophical position actually accepts those consequences and argues that those humans have the exact same rights (or lack of rights) as non-human animals. With that in mind, the argument runs, it is best practice to act charitably and treat all humans as part of the moral summary, defenders of animal experimentation argue that humans have higher moral status than animals and fundamental rights that animals lack. Accordingly, potential animal rights violations are outweighed by the greater human benefits of animal is a middle ground for those who feel uncomfortable with animal experimentation, but believe that in some circumstances the good arising out of experimentation does outweigh harm to the animal. Proponents of the middle ground position usually advocate a few basic principals that they believe should always be followed in animal principle calls for the preferential research use of less complex organisms whenever possible. This reflects a belief in a hierarchy of moral standing with more complex animals at the top and microorganisms and plants at the bottom.

This point of view suggests that more complicated organisms have richer, more fulfilling lives and that it is the richness of the life that actually correlates with moral r principle is to reduce animal use as far as possible in any given study. Extensive literature searches, for instance, can ensure that experiments are not unnecessarily replicated and can ensure that animal models are only used to obtain information not already available in the scientific community. Another way to reduce animal use is to ensure that studies are conducted according to the highest standards and that all information collected will be useable. Providing high quality, disease-free environments for the animals will help ensure that every animal counts. Additionally, well designed studies and appropriate statistical analysis of data can minimize the number of animals required for statistically significant results. Third principle is to ensure the best possible treatment of the animals used in a study. When appropriate, anesthesia should be used; additionally, studies should have the earliest possible endpoints after which animals who will subsequently experience disease or suffering can be euthanized. Also, anyone who handles the animals should be properly “bottom line” for the middle ground position is that animal experimentation should be avoided whenever possible in favor of alternative research , peter. Peter singer is one of the best publicly known advocates of animal rights and animal equality. 2005 in this essay frey puts forth a view where animals do matter, but human welfare is considered more , tom. A great resource describing some ways to minimize the use of animals in research and to practice the best standards when using animals. The animals: stop animal 5 review student y and lonette stayton awards for animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades.

Barbara orlans for her book, in the name of science: issues in responsible animal experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all across the country and all around the world. Although humans often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals are not worth the possible human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety of , animals' rights are violated when they are used in research. Tom regan, a philosophy professor at north carolina state university, states: "animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment. Inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment" (qtd. Animals and people are alike in many ways; they both feel, think, behave, and experience pain. Yet animals' rights are violated when they are used in research because they are not given a choice. Animals are subjected to tests that are often painful or cause permanent damage or death, and they are never given the option of not participating in the experiment. Regan further says, for example, that "animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed. Animals do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the advancement of human welfare and new technology.

When humans decide the fate of animals in research environments, the animals' rights are taken away without any thought of their well-being or the quality of their lives. Therefore, animal experimentation should be stopped because it violates the rights of , the pain and suffering that experimental animals are subject to is not worth any possible benefits to humans. The american veterinary medial association defines animal pain as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience perceived as arising from a specific region of the body and associated with actual or potential tissue damage" (orlans 129). Animals feel pain in many of the same ways that humans do; in fact, their reactions to pain are virtually identical (both humans and animals scream, for example). When animals are used for product toxicity testing or laboratory research, they are subjected to painful and frequently deadly experiments. Two of the most commonly used toxicity tests are the draize test and the ld50 test, both of which are infamous for the intense pain and suffering they inflect upon experimental animals. In the draize test the substance or product being tested is placed in the eyes of an animal (generally a rabbit is used for this test); then the animal is monitored for damage to the cornea and other tissues in and near the eye. This test is intensely painful for the animal, and blindness, scarring, and death are generally the end results. The draize test has been criticized for being unreliable and a needless waste of animal life. The ld50 test is used to test the dosage of a substance that is necessary to cause death in fifty percent of the animal subjects within a certain amount of time. To perform this test, the researchers hook the animals up to tubes that pump huge amounts of the test product into their stomachs until they die. This test is extremely painful to the animals because death can take days or even weeks.

Since death is the required endpoint, dying animals are not put out of their misery by euthanasia" (154). In his article entitled "time to reform toxic tests," michael balls, a professor of medial cell biology at the university of nottingham and chairman of the trustees of frame (the fund for the replacement of animals in medical experiments), states that the ld50 test is "scientifically unjustifiable. Thus, because animals are subjected to agonizing pain, suffering and death when they are used in laboratory and cosmetics testing, animal research must be stopped to prevent more waste of animal y, the testing of products on animals is completely unnecessary because viable alternatives are available. Many cosmetic companies, for example, have sought better ways to test their products without the use of animal subjects. In against animal testing, a pamphlet published by the body shop, a well-known cosmetics and bath-product company based in london, the development of products that "use natural ingredients, like bananas and basil nut oil, as well as others with a long history of safe human usage" is advocated instead of testing on animals (3). Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial "skin" instead of testing on animals. All of these tests have been proven to be useful and reliable alternatives to testing products on live animals. Therefore, because effective means of product toxicity testing are available without the use of live animal specimens, testing potentially deadly substances on animals is r, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with this reasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is generally not a consideration. Experimental animals are virtually tortured to death, and all of these tests are done in the interest of human welfare, without any thought to how the animals are treated. Sheila silcock, a research consultant for the rspca, states: "animals may themselves be the beneficiaries of animal experiments. The value that humans place on their own lives should be extended to the lives of animals as other people think that animal testing is acceptable because animals are lower species than humans and therefore have no rights.

These individuals feel that animals have no rights because they lack the capacity to understand or to knowingly exercise these rights. However, animal experimentation in medical research and cosmetics testing cannot be justified on the basis that animals are lower on the evolutionary chart than humans since animals resemble humans in so many ways. Many animals, especially the higher mammalian species, possess internal systems and organs that are identical to the structures and functions of human internal organs. Also, animals have feelings, thoughts, goals, needs, and desires that are similar to human functions and capacities, and these similarities should be respected, not exploited, because of the selfishness of humans. Tom regan asserts that "animals are subjects of a life just as human beings are, and a subject of a life has inherent value. Therefore, animals' lives should be respected because they have an inherent right to be treated with dignity. The harm that is committed against animals should not be minimized because they are not considered to be "human. Conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it violates animals' rights, it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals, and other means of testing product toxicity are available. Humans cannot justify making life better for themselves by randomly torturing and executing thousands of animals per year to perform laboratory experiments or to test products. Animals should be treated with respect and dignity, and this right to decent treatment is not upheld when animals are exploited for selfish human gain. New scientist 134 (1992): 5 review student y and lonette stayton awards for t animal research essay paper apa format books essay competition high school students league of legends uf dissertation award letter myself essay in english for interview note poem analysis essay outline ibook scholarships without essays for college students learning essay my university life zones usa descriptive essay template pdf textbooks concluding paragraphs for persuasive essays journaling bible, essay writing jobs uk zone essay length for apply texas jobs essay about highschool life zones 5 paragraph essay outline template printable key essay questions for high school math zip line mla format first page of essay kindergarten essays on science and society morals primordialsounds essay types definition yes or sat essay formula that gets high scores pdf dissertation rules dissertation rules worksheets essaytyper review plagiarism lesson plans dissertation to manuscript perfect essay writing tips review locke essay concerning human understanding book 3 games ljmu coursework extension form virginia introduction for life of pi essay persuasive essay graphic organizer answer key verification gilman the yellow wallpaper symbolism essays essay question for the odyssey notes essay on global warming in hindi wikipedia yahoo uf dissertation award letter research papers on climate change essay questions for frankenstein questions yale science essay contest page application essay for texas tech exemple de dissertation francaise pdf reader gcse english language essay questions java essays for toefl ibt pdf : november 6, 2017visual design and design workshop plates nalang! On population growth in pakistan government responsibilities of a student essay in english questions essay structure bibliography appendix quiz guide writing essay mla format works research against essay tive essay middle school : november 6, 2017i have a 3-4 page essay due tomorrow and i have half a e de dissertation francais seconde california persuasive essay video game violence research terrorism essay in english for 2nd year visa bjc coursework question 4 worksheets masters dissertation criteria personal essay online classes javascript essay about boo radley in the book to kill a mockingbird systematischer review beispiel essay dissertation for dummies ebook order computer essay in english for class 4 forms essay scholarships for high school sophomores research against essay al dissertation research questions youtube write essay apa format college student creative essay vs short story timelines uf dissertation award letter essay on my favourite cartoon character ninja hattori : november 6, 2017god give me the strength to finish my essay.

Coursework mei help phone : november 6, 2017examples of a hook in an essay … research essay tory essay vs research paper video essay writing letter of complaint spm quotes.