Animal cruelty
One of the most touchy aspects of our relationship with animals is the use of animals in laboratory sciences. Some manufactures of cosmetics and household products still conduct painful and useless tests on live animals, even though no law requires them not to. Some people, called anti-vivisectionists, are at one extreme in their concern. They want an abolition of all experiments on live animals. At the other extreme there are those who say that it is quite all right for us to do whatever we like to animals. They say that God gave us such a right, since it is written in the bible (Genesis 1:26) that man has dominion over all creatures. If these tests give some educational value, adds to scientific knowledge, or can help improve human health, they argue that it is worth killing animals or subjecting them to painful experiments. I believe that the unnecessary testing of animals is inhumane and unethical when alternative methods The anti-vivisectionists say we should not allow experiments on animals and the animal utilitarians, or vivisectionists, claim that we can do anything to animals if i
Human cells can be used in such studies. How placing a piece of lipstick in the eye of a rabbit to determine if it is safe Albrecht 4for the consumer, boggles my mind. Other approaches are also being developed, there are computer programs that estimate the LD50 score of an untested substance by comparing its chemical and structural properties to those of similar substances of know toxicity. Millions of rats, rabbits, mice and guinea pigs have been used in these tests, which purportedly assure the safety of cosmetics and household products. Animal cells can often be made to grow and divide indefinitely, thus sparing animals lives. If the animals do not die from the effects of the experiments itself, they are either killed or used for an autopsy, or, if they are not badly injured, recycled and used for additional tests. Many manufactures such as Avon, Revlon, and Estee Lauder have ceased animal tests. But is it right to take perfectly healthy animals and harm them to find cures for human illnesses, many of which we bring on ourselves by poisoning the environment, eating the wrong kinds of foods, and by not adopting a healthy active life-style? Do people have the right to do what ever they like to perfectly healthy animals? Do we have the right to continue doing experiments over and over again in a needless repetition and a waste of animals if no new information is going to be gained? Animals suffer unnecessarily and their lives are pointlessly wasted. Animal tests for the safety of cosmetics, household products and chemicals are the least justifiable. Alternatives to animal tests are available on todays market. Several laboratories may perform the test on the same chemicals and report different results. Using a standardized scoring scheme, the degrees of damage to the conjunctivia, iris, and cornea are compared to graded Albrecht 5levels of irritations. Based on the total Draize score and the symptoms' duration, the test chemical is classified by the degree of irritation it causes: none, mild, moderate, or severe.
Common topics in this essay:
Animal Cruelty,
Drug Administration,
Percent L50,
Designs Technical,
Gil Langley,
Safety Commission,
Agarose Diffusion-Tiny,
Estee Lauder,
Assay- Irritants,
Eye-Irritancy Test,
animal tests,
draize test,
cosmetics household products,
animal testing,
household products,
cosmetics household,
product safety,
neutral red,
human eyes,
eye irritancy,
human cells,
perfectly healthy animals,
piece lipstick eye,
consumer product safety,
safety cosmetics household,
|
Acceptance Essays
