No to Animal Testing - Essay Example

Speech/Presentation No to Animal Testing (Introduction) (Start presentation holding the visual aid of a healthy rabbit) I know everyone sees the image in my hand. The rabbit looks vigorous, pleasant and the kind of pet that you would want your little sibling or cousin to play with, generally because it is harmless. I bet that even some of you would describe themselves as ‘rabbit people’ when it comes to the choice of pets. Rabbits are easy to observe and handle making them convenient pets for people who can get over their natural propensities relative to chewing and digging. According to different articles on the internet, every rabbit has an idiosyncratic personality but they are all playful, trivial, independent and fascinating as the popular puppies and kittens (Andrew 1). In fact, as a pet, the rabbit is loyal, smart and openly affectionate as much as a dog; commonly referred to as ‘Man’s Best Friend’. Still on the image of the rabbit, some of the Spanish artists and painters use it in their work as a symbol of chastity and purity. Today, almost all pharmacists encourage the testing of drugs on an innocent and fascinating animal such as the rabbit (Hajar 42). Although most of the times it is usually for a good cause, the effects of many of these drugs leaves the delightful rabbit looking like this (Holds up a second picture of an injured abused rabbit). Mind you, this is the not the only form of test done on animals. The experiments are not the issue; the major concern is the effects. Statistics show that over ninety million animals die in the United States every year due to burns, poison and other forms of abuse that even lead to some of them being cripples. Although some of these experiments are effectual and harmless to the animals, most of the scientists dispose them immediately after getting the results. I understand that human lives are usually at stake hence the use of animals but I believe that animal testing is not a rational practice in any experiments or other common platforms. I do not see any coherent justification of using rats as the key identifiers of the different forms of cancers prevalent in human beings or the need to dissect a rabbit as a way of finding out how a certain drug affects its cerebral system (McDonald 1). This is a pervasive issue in most parts of the world and ‘the elephant in the room’ today. Imagine if the little sibling or cousin you thought about earlier saw his rabbit or rodent pet looking like these pictures after the experiments? How would they react? Personally, I know the image itself traumatized me and I would not want to see my pet or anyone’s pet in this horrifying condition. This is why we must all say no to any kind of animal testing, whether it is a reptile or amphibian living in the forests, no living thing deserves the harsh treatment. I believe with the technological and scientific advancements, there are less harmful ways to conduct the experiments and still maintain the health statures of animals and human beings (Biba 1). (Confirmation) As I insinuated using animals in testing of drugs, chemicals and other substances is a practice that we should all discourage based on rational reasons that revolve around these substances effects on rabbits, rats, mice, pigs, birds and other victims. Firstly, the animal tests show the cruelty and inhumanity among the scientists. I have read findings of past experiments and research that show the force used by the involved parties (PETA 1). The different people involved in these experiments use force in feeding the animals; moreover, due to their resilience, they insert tubes in their body systems to help in the feeding and inhalation. After the experiments make sufficient progress, the food and water becomes scarce for these animals on top of the prolonged restraining, burns and wounds. Instead of administering the necessary treatment procedures, the scientists opt to dispose the animals after killing them through breaking their necks, decapitating or injecting them with toxic chemicals. I believe that my description paints the comprehensive picture especially on the cruel and inhumane aspects of animal testing (PETA 1). Among the most horrifying experiments is the testing for one of a new transnational company dealing with shampoo and other products. The company’s manufacturers used rabbits to test whether the shampoos would cause any form of irritation on human skin and eyes. They clipped the rabbits’ eyes to stop the blinking and poured several drops for up to three days until the testing process was over. Although some of the rabbits survived the continuous torture, the scientists incapacitated all of them at the end of the experiment (Feder 1). Definitely, not even a strong and able human being can withstand this form of torture yet the scientists continue to advocate for the use of helpless animals in their tests. Up to this point, it is prevalent that even though the scientists pretend to show certain concern about the animals, their death after the experiments is not an issue. I believe this factor goes hand in hand with the fact that most of the experiments are defective and even when selecting the specific animals to use, the scientists are aware there are high chance they will die. This is an outright wastage of lives. The United States, being the most affected, shows a 90% failure of all experiments under the aspects of death and crippling of animals used (Ericson 1). In some sectors such as biomedical, the protocols dictate that every animal used in an experiment faces death, mainly because most of them suffer. Even the scientists agree that the animal tests bring suffering to the rodents, reptiles or other subjects used. The biological structure of the human body is complex as compared to that of the animals making them inefficient test subjects. With this in mind, I believe that the scientists and other parties involved in animal tests should not use this point as a pretext. Evaluation of human metabolism processes and cellular properties shows that animals are poor subjects of tests for human products (Martindale 1). I acknowledge the fact that some scientists make attempts of equating certain animals to meet the standards of the human body but they have all failed without making any significant progress. The university professor who said humans are not 70 kilograms rabbits creates a coherent platform opposing the idea of scientists comparing humans with animals. Matter of fact, some drugs lack any negative effects on the animals but have adverse effects on humans upon approval (Draxler 1). A good example is the 1950s crisis where an approved sleeping pill caused deformities in a significant number of newborn infants. After thorough investigation, some scientists found out that these effects were also prevalent in animals but only when administered in high dosages. After reading this, I decided to put more attention on the drugs I ingest because it turns out that some of the animals face horrifying torture to no avail. Animal testing is not only wrong on different levels but in some circumstances, it does not meet the preset purpose. (Confutation) I believe that most of us have heard the notion that scientists insist on animal testing because there are no alternative experimentation subjects relative to the living body and whole system of a human being. The experimenters argue that even though the human and animal living systems are different they are both complex and testing on animals provides a firm foundation for understanding the best products for the human body (Rowan 85). Studying the cellular structures of these animals is useful but does not provide sufficient opportunity to study the human system and its reactions to the subject chemicals or products. Although, they still insist on using animals for these tests, it does not meet the comprehensive requirements making it a waste of life and cruel. In the 20th century, computer technology had limited developments hence animal testing was a more rational practice. Today, on the other hand, there are multiple technological and scientific advancements to replace the animal tests. For instance, preserved cells in petri dishes give more promising results than animal tests particularly when human cells apply. In countries like Europe and Japan where the government banned animal testing, scientists still test drugs and products using other practices (Feder 1). The most common is the use of human volunteers where scientists conduct an analysis of the subjects’ blood before administering doses. These are a few options that experimenters could replace animal testing with to avoid the torture and death of helpless subjects. In fact, combination of these practices with the 21st century computer models forms a firmer foundation for studying human cerebral and cellular structures without the slaying of rabbits, rats, mice among others. It is in rare cases that scientists use religious evidence to support their practice; in fact, most of them are against its traditions. Surprisingly, religious traditions are among the few points that experimenters use to support their animal testing practices (Dewey 1). According to religious books such as the Bible or Koran, humans dominate animals. This has its fair share of rationalism but it does not mean that scientists and experiments should slay animals all in the name of conducting tests that will protect human beings from harm. Some of them go into detail by stating that Christians, Jews and Muslims advocate for the experimentation of animals. However, this is only when the animals do not undergo torture or other practices that lead to death. As per our learning processes in the early human development stages, animals are living things that also feel pain and we should not subject them to any suffering because of our physical and intellectual privileges. This is primal in almost all religions including Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism who believe in treating animals rightfully (Andrew 1). (Conclusion) There are too many demerits of animal testing and I believe that we can take the first steps to stopping the horrifying act by simply saying ‘NO’. Remember that as you sit there right now, there are cold and barren cages containing all kinds of animals in laboratories waiting to face the undeserved execution. These animals cannot do anything about their condition but suffer in pain, twinge with loneliness and hope for a day they walk free again and use their minds and extensive vigor. These animals could be that neighborhood dog that everybody loves calling out or your niece’s favorite pet, the cat bought for her birthday by her father. Imagine if you were in their shoes, just sitting in a cage somewhere not knowing what the next procedure will be and hoping that this time it will be less painful or wishing that the killing part comes quicker to relief you of the excruciating pain. I need not say any more about the inhumanity and cruelty. There are ways to avoid these acts but we do not have to wait for the scientists and experimenters to take any action. Let us ‘Say No to Animal Testing’! Thank You. Works Cited Andrew, Elise. Measuring Rabbit Pain: The Scientist. 2012. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32598/title/Measuring-Rabbit-Pain/> Biba, Erin. How to Get Rid of Animal Testing: Popular Science Magazine. 2013. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.popsci.com/article/science/how-get-rid-animal-testing> Dewey, J. The Ethics of Animal Experimentation: The Atlantic. 1926. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1926/09/the-ethics-of-animal-experimentation/305429/> Draxler, Breanne. Animal Testing- NIH Plans to Retire Chimpanzees from Research: Discover Magazine. 2013. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://discovermagazine.com/tags?tag=animal+testing> Ericson, John. The Price of Killing of Animal Testing: News Week. 2014. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/21/price-killing-animal-testing-245548.html> Feder, Barnaby. Saving the Animals- New Ways to Test Products: The New York Times. 2007. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12animal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> Hajar, Rachael. Animal Testing and Medicine: Heart Views Journal 12.1(2011): 42. Martindale, Victoria. Animal Experimentation: Science- The Guardian. 2015. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.theguardian.com/science/animal-experimentation> McDonald, Andy. Animal Testing: The Huffington Post. 2015. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/animal-testing/> People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Animal Testing Is a Bad Science: Animals Used for Experimentation, Issues. 2015. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/> People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing: Animals Used for Experimentation, Blog. 2011. Web, 22 March 2015 < http://www.peta.org/blog/top-five-reasons-stop-animal-testing/> People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Animal Testing 101: Animals Used for Experimentation, Issues. 2015. Web, 22 March 2015 Rowan, Andrew. The Benefits and Ethics of Animal Research: Scientific American Journal 10 (1997): 79-93. Visual Aids Healthy Looking and Vigorous Rabbit Effects of Animal Testing on a Rabbit Effects of Animal Testing on a Dog Read More