Imagine living inside a locked closet without any control over any aspect of your life. You don’t have the option to choose when and what you eat, how you will spend your time, whether or not you will have a partner and children, or liberty to choose that partner. Think about spending your entire life like this, a prisoner, even though you have committed no crime. Animals in laboratories endure this treatment every day. These animals go through deprivation, isolation, and misery. Each year in the United States, an estimated seventy million animals hurt and killed in the name of science by private institutions, household products and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. Millions of mice,
…show more content…
Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina state University, says: “Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment…This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment”. Animals and people have many things in common, they both feel, think, and experience pain. Animals face painful experiments that cause permanent damage or death, and never receive the option of not participating in the experiment. Thus, animals should obtain the same respect as humans. Yet humans violate their rights we use them in research against their own will. Regan further says, “Animal experimentation is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animals basic right has been infringed. Risk are not morally transferrable to those who do not choose to take them” When humans decide the fate of animals in research and experimentation the animals rights are being taken away without any thought of their well-being …show more content…
Alternative scientific test are often more reliable than animal testing. For example, experiments in rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Only after human studies related the two did the occupational safety and health administration label these fibers as carcinogenic. EpiDerm, an in vitro test derived from human skin cells, was found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants that the traditional animal tests. In comparison studies, EpiDerm correctly detected also of the test chemicals that irritate human skin, while test on rabbits miss classified 10 out of 25 test chemicals a 40% error rate. The use of human tissue in toxicity testing is more accurate than the animal models. The lethal dose 50 forces animals to ingest toxic and lethal substances to the endpoint where 50% of the animals in the study die. Dr. Bjorn Ekwall in Sweden develop a replacement for the lethal dose 50 that is far more accurate than animal models and uses human tissue rather than
Tom Regan, a philosophy professor at North Carolina state University, says: “Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment…This inherent value is not respected when animals are reduced to being mere tools in a scientific experiment”. Animals and people have many things in common, they both feel, think, and experience pain. Animals face painful experiments that cause permanent damage or death, and never receive the option of not participating in the experiment. Thus, animals should obtain the same respect as humans. Yet humans violate their rights we use them in research against their own will. Regan further says, “Animal experimentation is morally wrong no matter how much humans may benefit because the animals basic right has been infringed. Risk are not morally transferrable to those who do not choose to take them” When humans decide the fate of animals in research and experimentation the animals rights are being taken away without any thought of their well-being …show more content…
Alternative scientific test are often more reliable than animal testing. For example, experiments in rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Only after human studies related the two did the occupational safety and health administration label these fibers as carcinogenic. EpiDerm, an in vitro test derived from human skin cells, was found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants that the traditional animal tests. In comparison studies, EpiDerm correctly detected also of the test chemicals that irritate human skin, while test on rabbits miss classified 10 out of 25 test chemicals a 40% error rate. The use of human tissue in toxicity testing is more accurate than the animal models. The lethal dose 50 forces animals to ingest toxic and lethal substances to the endpoint where 50% of the animals in the study die. Dr. Bjorn Ekwall in Sweden develop a replacement for the lethal dose 50 that is far more accurate than animal models and uses human tissue rather than