16 July 2021
Austin, Michael. “2.” Reading the World, W. W. Norton & Company, 2019, p. 58, ncia.wwnorton.com/76724/r/goto/cfi/36!/4. Accessed 16 July 2021.
The last paragraph describes precisely why humans do what they do, why does curiosity drive us towards actions that can end a living organism’s life. I’m using this in this essay because we all wonder what goes on inside the brain; human brain is a complex thing that even we as humans have a hard time understanding.
Austin, Michael. “2.” Reading the World, W. W. Norton & Company, 2019, p. 62, ncia.wwnorton.com/76724/r/goto/cfi/38!/4%20292. Accessed 16 July 2021
I’m using this quote by Buddha who explains really well that once we commit a sin, it becomes very easy to keep on doing so. I’m using it to explain that for most people it takes one to two times to get used to something that it doesn’t bother them anymore even though it’s ethically wrong.
Austin, Michael. “2.” Reading the World, edited by Mencius, W. W. Norton & Company, 2019, p. 67, ncia.wwnorton.com/76724/r/goto/cfi/40!/4. Accessed 16 July 2021
Mencius perfectly put into words that humans are good by nature. The changes could be brought about by anything. I’m using his explanation to prove my point that because people are good naturally, there’s always a way they can realize the bad they’ve been doing, which in this case is killing/hurting animals.
Baldrick, Paul. “Juvenile Animal Testing in Drug Development – Is It Useful?” Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 57, no. 2–3, 2010, pp. 291–99. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.03.009.
This source further proves that it’s still not clear if juvenile animal test studies are actually necessary or important to reinforce pediatric development. Juvenile animal testing should only be done if it is extremely necessary. There haven’t been any new discoveries in juvenile animal toxicology which is a positive thing.
Beck, Nancy. “Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research.” Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research, 2011. PlosOne, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024059. Accessed 16 July 2021
Research in the last ten years has shown that animals tend to experience pain much more than we consider and there are a number of factors which contribute to causing them harm. Animals are able to respond to distress in the same way as humans however there are biological differences between the two which make research findings unreliable.
Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views, vol. 12, no. 1, 2011, pp. 42. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.jccc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.jccc.edu/scholarly-journals/animal-testing-medicine/docview/871803913/se-2?accountid=2200, doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.jccc.edu/10.4103/1995-705X.81548.
The practice of animal testing in biomedical research has been rigorously criticized by animal rights activists who claim the process is inhumane and demand law for animal protection. Ethical concerns regarding animal testing have been raised continually and it is believed that the harm caused to animals outweighs any benefits to humans. The results are also considered to be unreliable as many assume animals to be unlike and inferior to humans.
Koojiman, Marlous, et al. “How Institutional Logics Hamper Innovation: The Case of Animal Testing.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 118, 2017, pp. 70–79. ScienceDirect, www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.jccc.edu/science/article/pii/S0040162517301567?via%3Dihub. Accessed 16 July 2021.
The article establishes the implications of non-implementation of innovative developments, particularly in the case of animal testing. It tells us that by conserving ourselves to established practices, we miss out on the awaiting potential of making our scientific pursuits easier. Furthermore, the article uses a framework that aims to increase the understanding amidst the two juxtaposed approaches. I chose this article because it justifies the importance of innovation that stems from the use of established technologies.
Lang, Annemarie, et al. “In silico Methods–Computational Alternatives to Animal Testing.” ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 35, no. 1, 2018, p. 126+. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A535817144/HRCA?u=jcl_jccc&sid=summon&xid=3af57c93. Accessed 16 July 2021
As humans advance further into the Fourth Industrial Revolution, this paper constructively adds onto it by discussing the computational alternatives to animal testing. Part of it goes on to describes how we can take advantage of math in biology: from non-linear models to differentials, future predictions and models can be made so much more accurate by implementing silico methods in our experiments. I chose this article because it couples nicely onto the use of IT as us humans advance further towards prosperity.
Mamzer, Hanna, et al. “Negative psychological aspects of working with experimental animals in scientific research.” PeerJ, vol. 9, 2021, p. e11035. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A659037567/HRCA?u=jcl_jccc&sid=bookmark-HRCA&xid=a8ed4d43. Accessed 16 July 2021.
This article tells us that some scientists feel remorse conducting the experiments that include killing animals and some even exchanged roles with other scientists to avoid doing so. This emotion can mess with the experiment and the people doing it. I chose this article because it tells us that animal testing can also be bad for humans.
Marinescu, Bogdan, and Cristin Coman. “The Ethics of Animals Testing.” Revista Romana De Bioetica, vol. 8, no. 3, 2010. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.jccc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.jccc.edu/scholarly-journals/ethics-animals-testing/docview/1286687152/se-2?accountid=2200.
Research and experiments conducted using lab animals causes certain levels of distress to them in one way or another which creates a major issue since animal testing is just as necessary as the need for reducing animal discomfort. There are several valid ethical reasons which make experiment regulations imperative.
May, J. E., et al. “Toxicity Testing: The Search for an in Vitro Alternative to Animal Testing.” British Journal of Biomedical Science, vol. 66, no. 3, 2009, pp. 160-5. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.jccc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.jccc.edu/scholarly-journals/toxicity-testing-search-vitro-alternative-animal/docview/227920508/se-2?accountid=2200.
Animal testing is a major disadvantage of toxicity testing that has also proven to be an expensive and exceedingly time-consuming procedure. Although animal models have provided a way for thorough testing, there are considerable concerns regarding the lack of correlation between animal testing and effects in humans along with an urge to decrease the use of animals due to several ethical reasons.
Meigs, Lucy, et al. “Animal Testing and its Alternatives–the Most Important Omics is Economics.” ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation, vol. 35, no. 3, 2018, p. 275+. Gale Academic OneFile Select, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A550612728/EAIM?u=jcl_jccc&sid=bookmark-EAIM&xid=67485dbc. Accessed 16 July 2021
This paper reevaluates the prospect of animal testing while keeping the recent technological advances in view. It also goes on to critique several alternatives testing methods. All of this goes to show the last series of evaluations done over a decade ago are outdated however it is pointed out that the world-wide animal use seems to be “relatively stable” throughout these years. I chose this article to examine the juxtaposition between the previous studies and this particular one.
“Number of Animals Used in Research in the US in 2018 by Species.” WordPress, Speaking of Research, 2020, speakingofresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/animals-used-in-research-in-the-us-in-2018-by-species.jpg. Accessed 16 July 2021
I’m using this data sheet to show the percentage of what kinds of animals are experimented on. It helps show that most of the animals used aren’t even included in Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
“Skin grown in lab helps reduce animal testing.” Times [London, England], 26 Sept. 2020, p. 3. Gale OneFile: News, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A636561273/STND?u=jcl_jccc&sid=summon&xid=7d8bdc87. Accessed 16 July 2021.
This article tells us that scientists have been working on and came up with a way of growing skin that could potentially put an end to animal testing. With the help of this discovery, it will be even easier for researchers and cosmetic companies to test on actual human skin. This discovery is better than others because the skin and stretch just like a living human skin.
“Pros and Cons of Animal Testing – Latest Research in Ongoing Debate.” PR Newswire, Oct 22, 2013. ProQuest, http://ezproxy.jccc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.jccc.edu/wire-feeds/pros-cons-animal-testing-latest-research-ongoing/docview/1443686778/se-2?accountid=2200.
Opposition to animal testing largely comes from animal rights activists who claim that animal research is inhumane and harsh and that researchers should develop alternative methods for experiments which would replace animals. The biological differences between animals and humans also render most research findings insignificant and unreliable.