I need major help and feedback.
Here are my teachers requirements:
Your Final Position Paper will be a 1000-1200 word essay (not including works cited or title pages) that meets the following requirements:
Here is my essay:
In today's world we should not still be using Laboratory Animals for Testing. The Government has completed hundreds of tests through out the years, and there has been very dismal proof that conducting the animal testing benefits us humans.
To better understand how we as humans have become so adherent to Animal Rights, let's take a look back in our history. Animals were merely a part of our food chain at the start of time, and then we needed hunting animals to hunt larger animals that would supply our families with more meat for our consumption. Years later, we needed animals such as cattle, horses, elephants, etc as a means of transportation by land and to help lighten the human workload. Years later it was infact possible to keep pets and/or companions. At the start of civilization we did need animals as a source of food and clothing. That was at the beginning of times and a decade or two ago. Now we have animals as companions, they are no longer pets. They are members of our families; they are valuable, and loved. These are the new times of animals, they are our family members, and we want to look out for every animal on earth. Animal rights needs to be addressed and stronger government guidelines need to be enforced.
There are two different kinds of animal testing. The first Animal experimentation, which entails that the laboratory animal may only have a minute or so of pain or discomfort. Surgical interventions are performed under anesthesia. The second is vivisection, which is the most inhumane testing performed. Vivisection is when the laborite's animal is not put under a y kind of anesthesia. The testing is conducted with the animal awake and feeling the enormous amount of pain. Vivisection is when they cut into the animal, without anesthesia or numbing agents.
This is why there are so many outraged animal rights activists that are involved in the utmost extreme groups. Humans are distinctly different from animals, organ wise. How can we test animals with drugs that we as humans are going to use, when our anatomy is totally different from each other. It would be much more logical to conduct "in vitro" testing on cloned tissue made up of human cells. Scientists can do experiments on isolated organs, tissues, cells or sub cellular structures. Animal donors can also be used in experiments. If the laboratory testers could take these avenues, this would cut cost and cut millions that our tax dollars are spending yearly for testing that are deemed useless and void.
Laboratories that conducting old fashioned animal testing are reporting that in fact they are marketing drugs that have shown a great magnitude of success on animals, and then when distributed throughout the pharmacies, they are not having the same outcome with actual humans. Recently, the drug Opren, which is used as an anti-rheumatic, was approved in Britain to be distributed to the pharmaceutical market. The lab animals showed positive results, humans didn't have such a lucky outcome. Opren killed 76 people, and caused serious illness to 3,500 others. This drug was tested and was given the green light to be given to humans, only to waste time and tax payer's dollars. Another prime example is what role animal testing played in delaying the highly effective anti- HIV therapies. There was a 4 year hold up, primary only because scientist decided to use lab dog and rats. They all died, so it delayed the drug therapy 4 years to get out to patients. When it did get out, it was the same therapy used on the dogs and rats that died, yet humans are showing positive results. Peter Tatchell has reported that A majority of the diseases we suffer are unique to our species. Cures are most likely to be found by studying the physiology of human beings, not other animals. We here in the United States need to take a good look at how the Government officials handle animal testing in the UK. The Government mandates the Laboratories to ensure that testing is conducted only when there is no other choice, or no other proven method in testing a certain drug. In the UK, they have a special Police task force that inspects Laboratories, to make sure that the lab animals are treated in very humane conditions. Also, in the UK, there is no tolerance for animal extremist violence acts against individuals, companies or any third party organization. This is fairly a new crack down on Animal Rights, but a Crack down that we should take a good look into.
Animal activists are definitely a breed of their own. If you know someone that is an active member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), then you know what I'm talking about. PETA is a very strong organization, renowned for its strident rhetoric and hardball tactics according to Sen. Bob Smith. Peta has been wonderful in gaining Animal Rights attention. Unfortunately, PETA has gained attention for the vicious acts members have campaigned on research facilities, and street protests, and harsh targeting on the fur industry. That is why the United States needs to take a good look at the Animal Rights plan the UK has implemented. It would be a compromise to both sides of the fight for and against Animal Rights. Everyone interest's would be protected.
Our government needs to take a better look at the possible outcome of marketing drugs that are deemed safe for animals. Research has proven that what works for them, does not necessarily work for us. I think that it is a waste of government tax dollars to keep conducting these tests, when the future results are so questionable. We need to also take a look at what we can learn from other countries that have had significant amounts of success with trying to tame both sides of the realm.
Tatchell, P. (2004, 8/9). Why animal research is bad science [Electronic version]. New Statesman, 133(4700), 18-19. .
Kim, G. (2006, 3/20). . Maclean's, 119(12), P38-38. Retrieved 22 April 2006.
Pet Causes. National Journal, 32(1), 32.