Cosmetic Testing on Animals
In 1983 the pharmaceutical company Pfizer carried out a special study to see if animal experiments could correctly identify cancer-causing chemicals. The results would be vitally important because despite costing millions of dollars, no one really knew whether the tests provided adequate protection against hazardous substances. Human findings were compared with experimental data from rats and mice for all chemicals known to cause cancer in people. The outcome was disturbing: in most cases animal tests had given the wrong answer. The report concluded that we would have been better off to toss a coin! The quarrel between those who would endow animals with "rights" and those who say that animals must be used if science is to move forward remains as heated as ever. Despite the widespread practice of harmful animal testing, there are numerous viable alternatives that prevent the unnecessary torture of innocent animals. Today, most people agree that causing unnecessary harm to an animal is wrong and our laws reflect that sentiment. Neglecting a pet by depriving it of food, water, or medical attention is a misdemeanor crime penalized by costly fines or in some cases jail time. Felonies include more sever fo
) The knowledge gained from animal research has extended human life and made it healthier through many significant achievements, as illustrated by the following examples: vaccines to prevent poliomyelitis and other communicable diseases; surgical procedures to replace diseased heart valves; corneal transplants to restore normal vision; new medicines to control high blood pressure and reduce death from stroke; anti-psychotic drugs to treat mental disorders; broad spectrum antibiotics to treat infections; and chemical agents to cure or slow childhood cancers (Importance 1. For instance, thirty years ago Holland used 3,500 monkeys a year to produce its polio vaccine; now only twenty are needed (Message 3. )The knowledge gained from animal research has extended human life and made it healthier through many significant achievements. ) Despite the claims of being cruelty-free, it is unclear just what this means. "Koch then persuaded the National Institutes of Health to halt funding for this project (Hurley 15. Most importantly, this was the first law regulating how people should treat animals. In the LD50 toxicity test, three to sixty mice or rats are force fed an ingredient suspected to be toxic until 50 percent of them die. Public displays of animal abuse were commonplace in nineteenth-century England; in fact, animal fighting was considered healthy entertainment. Misgivings over the validity of animal research are not new but they are growing. One reason for the change is that governments have insisted on it. In November of 1996, the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics was born and so, too, was a uniform method for identifying cruelty-free beauty products. The bill was defeated at the first introduction, but the next year it passed. ) In November of 1997, companies in Britain announced that they would voluntarily stop cosmetic testing on animals at the request of the Labor government (Firms1. This provides a measure of how much damage can occur to this essential part of the eye, which the Draize test overlooked.
Common topics in this essay:
Responsible Medicine,
Institutes Health,
Animal Testing,
Welfare Act,
Royal SPCA,
Jacob Sivak,
Drug Administration,
James- Enger,
American Canadian,
Newark Jersey,
animal testing,
animal research,
draize test,
holmes 2,
guinea pigs,
animal 1,
testing animals,
animal protection,
cosmetics toiletries,
animals research,
gained animal research,
research extended human,
message 2 researchers,
cosmetics testing animals,
animal research extended,
|
Acceptance Essays
