Essay Available:
Pages:
4 pages/≈1100 words
Sources:
8
Style:
MLA
Subject:
Literature & Language
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 14.4
Topic:
Animal Testing: Ethical Principles, Viability, and Legality
Essay Instructions:
See attached annotated bibliography for sources.
If you have any questions please message me.
Write a research essay on a topic of your choice that will ultimately require you to perform research and come up with an argumentative thesis for the final essay. This essay should:
Be based on a “researchable” inquiry question. An inquiry question is something that you ask yourself about the topic of your choice and try to answer through research. From the research you've found that allows you to make connections, you might also consider answering (after research) What does the evidence suggest is true? What is the relationship between the evidence? so that you may come up with a thesis that will be representable throughout your essay and using your sources.
Have a central thesis that represents your best answer to your research question.
Use appropriate, credible, and relevant sources.
Employ effective transitions between ideas, sources, and body paragraphs.
Incorporate sources effectively and balanced with your own observations and ideas.
Citations and formatting should be using MLA conventions.
Be written for an audience of peers rather than experts on the topic.
Use appropriate academic language.
Essay Sample Content Preview:
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Animal Testing
For many years, researchers have continued to use animals for scientific experimentation. The researchers use animals to establish medication. They also use animals to determine the safety of medical products destined for animal use (ProCon.org, par.1). However, the practice has, over the years, considerably become a contentious one. It continues to elicit mixed reactions and has split stakeholders into two opposing sides. One side of the divide vehemently defends the practice, while the other opposes it strongly. One of the reasons why opponents are more inclined to animal testing is its apparent viability. They claim that the approach has helped in developing many life-saving treatments. On the flip side, opponents claim that animal testing is cruel (ProCon.org, par.3). They argue that researchers should explore alternative methods. This back and forth between these two divides begs the question of whether there is a need to abolish animal testing. In answering that pertinent question, it would be prudent to consider ethical principles, viability, legality, and alternative methods that come into play. Considering these factors, it remains difficult to conclusively determine whether to abolish the practice or allow it to continue.
Ethical Principles
The question of whether animal testing is ethically acceptable continues to reign supreme. Some observers hold that the practice grossly infringes upon animal rights and should, therefore, be abolished altogether. According to Humane Society International, researchers commonly subject animals to force-feeding, deprivation of food and water, and infliction of burns and wounds (ProCon.org. par.4). Critics contend that such harrowing ordeals are unacceptable and should not be allowed to prevail under whatever circumstances.
On the flip side, proponents of animal testing contend that animal rights do not contradict the use of animals for experimentation. As such, they hold that it should be permissible. By good measure, the proponents argue that banning animal research would inevitably create an ethical problem. They anchor their argument on the notion that such a ban would effectively deprive animals of the benefits that potentially accrue to the practice (Martin par.1). However, proponents are alive to the overriding fact that animals should be accorded similar ethical requirements to those that guide human research. The requirements include social value and scientific validity, among others. They also contend that certain ethical principles such as replacement, reduction, and refinement should have ample space (Cheluvappa et al. par.1). They advocate for the treatment of animals in the most human way possible. In view of this, they believe that implementing these principles fully would most assuredly lessen the needless suffering of animals used in research.
Viability of Animal Testing
Proponents of animal research consensually agree that its importance is profound. As such, it would be foolhardy to dispense it. For instance, California Biomedical Research Association alludes that almost every medical accomplishment in the last 100 years resulted from animal research (ProCon.org. par.4). Major advances in treating such complex conditions as breast cancer and childhood leukemia have emanated from animal research. In addition, animal testing is crucial in ensuring that vaccines are safe before being administered to humans. Going with these arguments, supporters of animal research feel that its viability cannot be gainsaid.
On the other hand, opponents of the same hold entirely divergent views. Some have painstakingly outlined how the practice has been unreliable and counterproductive. For instance, according to Akhtar, substantial discordance between animal models and human diseases presents an enormous obstacle (par.8). To lend strength to his argument, the author intimates that it is, for instance, impossible to replicate human stroke in animals. In addition, other opponents feel that animal research is disadvantageous because of the distress and deaths it needlessly causes to animals (Doke and Dhawale par.1). Similarly, they argue that animal testing is an expensive undertaking that requires skilled manpower and expensive technological appliances. It also involves time-consuming protocols.
The legality of Animal Testing
The issue of whether animal testing has any legal standing continues to abound. M...
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Animal Testing
For many years, researchers have continued to use animals for scientific experimentation. The researchers use animals to establish medication. They also use animals to determine the safety of medical products destined for animal use (ProCon.org, par.1). However, the practice has, over the years, considerably become a contentious one. It continues to elicit mixed reactions and has split stakeholders into two opposing sides. One side of the divide vehemently defends the practice, while the other opposes it strongly. One of the reasons why opponents are more inclined to animal testing is its apparent viability. They claim that the approach has helped in developing many life-saving treatments. On the flip side, opponents claim that animal testing is cruel (ProCon.org, par.3). They argue that researchers should explore alternative methods. This back and forth between these two divides begs the question of whether there is a need to abolish animal testing. In answering that pertinent question, it would be prudent to consider ethical principles, viability, legality, and alternative methods that come into play. Considering these factors, it remains difficult to conclusively determine whether to abolish the practice or allow it to continue.
Ethical Principles
The question of whether animal testing is ethically acceptable continues to reign supreme. Some observers hold that the practice grossly infringes upon animal rights and should, therefore, be abolished altogether. According to Humane Society International, researchers commonly subject animals to force-feeding, deprivation of food and water, and infliction of burns and wounds (ProCon.org. par.4). Critics contend that such harrowing ordeals are unacceptable and should not be allowed to prevail under whatever circumstances.
On the flip side, proponents of animal testing contend that animal rights do not contradict the use of animals for experimentation. As such, they hold that it should be permissible. By good measure, the proponents argue that banning animal research would inevitably create an ethical problem. They anchor their argument on the notion that such a ban would effectively deprive animals of the benefits that potentially accrue to the practice (Martin par.1). However, proponents are alive to the overriding fact that animals should be accorded similar ethical requirements to those that guide human research. The requirements include social value and scientific validity, among others. They also contend that certain ethical principles such as replacement, reduction, and refinement should have ample space (Cheluvappa et al. par.1). They advocate for the treatment of animals in the most human way possible. In view of this, they believe that implementing these principles fully would most assuredly lessen the needless suffering of animals used in research.
Viability of Animal Testing
Proponents of animal research consensually agree that its importance is profound. As such, it would be foolhardy to dispense it. For instance, California Biomedical Research Association alludes that almost every medical accomplishment in the last 100 years resulted from animal research (ProCon.org. par.4). Major advances in treating such complex conditions as breast cancer and childhood leukemia have emanated from animal research. In addition, animal testing is crucial in ensuring that vaccines are safe before being administered to humans. Going with these arguments, supporters of animal research feel that its viability cannot be gainsaid.
On the other hand, opponents of the same hold entirely divergent views. Some have painstakingly outlined how the practice has been unreliable and counterproductive. For instance, according to Akhtar, substantial discordance between animal models and human diseases presents an enormous obstacle (par.8). To lend strength to his argument, the author intimates that it is, for instance, impossible to replicate human stroke in animals. In addition, other opponents feel that animal research is disadvantageous because of the distress and deaths it needlessly causes to animals (Doke and Dhawale par.1). Similarly, they argue that animal testing is an expensive undertaking that requires skilled manpower and expensive technological appliances. It also involves time-consuming protocols.
The legality of Animal Testing
The issue of whether animal testing has any legal standing continues to abound. M...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: