animal testing for cosmetics

Name
Instructor
Animal testing for cosmetics
Date
Animal testing for cosmetics
Animal testing for cosmetics has been an activity that has continued for a long time whereby the experts and researchers who carry out the operation prefer animals over humans because they believe it’s less painful on animals than on humans. However, it has caused controversy where one group protecting animals has been against it while the other party advocating for the continuation of research and protection of human rights have supported the research to be carried out on animals. It’s clear that animal importance outweighs animal importance hence the research/testing should be carried out on animals but there is a need to ensure the operation isn’t painful and it doesn’t result to the death of the animal.Festing, Simon “Animal Research.” Ecologist 9 (2003). 6 Nov. 2005. <http://web4.epnet.com/>.
The aim of Simon to write this article was to reveal the importance of this act of animal testing for cosmetics and how it can be disadvantageous if it results in the death of humans. Its audience is anyone researching the issue, to those using cosmetics and to those who care about animals.This article is a debate between the two sides of animal testing, Festing is protesting while Ray is anti-testing. Simon Festing argues that animal testing is a critical part of scientific testing. He points out that it is required that new medicines be tested on animals before being distributed to humans for further testing.

He also argues that animal research has already played an important role in scientific research for drugs, antibiotics, and even drug transfusions, and with more detrimental diseases claiming large amounts of lives, their use should be continued. Ray argues the misleading results of animal testing, stating that medicine that proved safe for animals killed humans and that humans died waiting for viable results to come from these tests. They each also recognize their opposite opinions and refute some and agree with others.
My opinion on this article is that the author has achieved to express the two sides of animal testing for cosmetics which are the negative and the positive sides. The article has provided me with crucial information on why I can support the exercise provided it is aimed at improving the living condition of a human. Also, thas provided insightful facts on why I can oppose this act if it results in affecting humans negatively.
Frey, R. G. “Justifying Animal Experimentation.” Society 6 (2002). 5 Nov. 2005. <http://web4.epnet.com/>.
The aim which influenced Frey to write this article is to express his ideas on why animal testing for cosmetics should continue to be exercised because he believes it’s importance outweigh its demerits. The audience of this article was to any person doubting if the exercise is good or bad. Frey argues that the benefits of animal experimentation outweigh the harm done to animals through it. The author states that many gains have been produced through animal testing such as greater knowledge of disease diagnosis and treatment and overall advancement in knowledge. He then explains why animals should be used over humans, stating that whoever would suffer the least, and be more accepted widespread, should be tested on. He uses the example of a rabbit and a child, concluding that people would more widely accept testing rabbits than children because children suffering is more acknowledgeable than rabbits suffering.
This article has also been of importance because it has successfully been able to justify the reason why this exercise should continue because if it had been carried on humans, it would have been more painful and unreasonable.
Morris, Michael “Animal Rights and Theories of Origins: A Plea for Unity.” Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion 3 (2003). 1 Nov. 2005. <http://web19.epnet.com>.
The aim of Morris to write this article was to protect the animals against any experiment or subjection to test because he believes it’s against the animals’ rights. The audience of this article is all humans who fight for the rights of animals and any person intending to carry out the experiment on animals. The views present in this essay are those against animal experimentation. Morris’s main arguments are that data from animal testing cannot be applied to humans and is therefore trivial, animals have interests as conscious beings, and it is unethical to cause pain to conscious beings for trivial reasons. He states that since animals feel emotions and can act intelligently, which has been proved in experiments, that animals are undoubtedly conscious beings. He adds, that since humans and all animals have evolved from the same organism (if you believe in evolution) and they share similar behaviors, then they will have similar attributes, in this case, consciousness. He then describes, using the Bible, that animals should be treated justly, therefore not performing cruel tests on them. Finally, he argues how animal testing can be misleading when applied to human beings. This could be because of initial conditions or a variety of other variables that in the long run skew the results.
This article has been of importance because it has expressed the other side of animal rights and need for being ethical whereby the person planning to carry out animal testing for cosmetics should realize that the animals also feel pain.
Schupak, Amanda “The Bunny Chip.” Forbes 3 (2005). 5 Nov. 2005. <http://web14.epnet.com/>
The aim Amanda and Schupak to develop this article were to give experts of cosmetics an option of testing their cosmetics whereby it wouldn’t impact both the animals and the humans. The audience of this article is anyone investigation issues of animal testing for cosmetics and anyone researching on alternative means of testing the cosmetics. Schupak describes in more depth the alternative microchip idea. A company named Hurel Corp. developed a microchip-sized structure devised of silicon and actual animal. This microchip is pumped full of the drug in test and reacts when a problem is encountered. It has been tested and retested since 1999 and is looking to be used as an alternative by next year. This chip theoretically, would save drug companies millions of dollars, speed up the process of putting a drug on the market, and spare millions of animal test subjects, who would otherwise die. She continues, discussing how the chip has been used to test the destructive capacity of a drug that only causes damage after being metabolized. As an end result, the chip proved true. Only time will tell if this idea could ultimately lead to the replacement of animal testing.
This article has been of importance because it has provided me with insight about an alternative way in which I can test cosmetics apart from the usual reliance on animals.
Twomey, Vincent D. “Experimentation on Animals.” Irish Theological Quarterly 2 (2004). 31 Oct. 2005. <http://web26.epnet.com/>.
The aim of Vincent et al. to come up with this article was to justify the need to carry out animal testing for cosmetics on animals citing that even biblical teaching allows such experiment provided they end result is of benefit to the human. The audience of this article is anyone seeking justification for the continued experiment of cosmetics on animals. Twomey’s essay suggests that animal experimentation is justified to an extent, according to religious writings, the Bible, and other religious persons, such as Thomas Aquinas. He deduces that animals must be cared for as we care for each other but in the overall perspective, humans matter more. If animal experimentation will benefit the lives of humans, then it is justified. He continues, if the experimentation is for pharmaceutical use, then it’s alright, but if for cosmetic use then it’s cruel. The extent to which animal testing is justified is this: there must be a minimal amount of pain to the animals (if the large amount, painkillers or anesthetics are suggested), and the animals must be treated with kindness. On the other hand, he argues that animal alternatives should try to be used, such as human tests, in vitro tests, computer simulations, and less sentient life form tests.
This article is essential and unique because it provides me with a unique justification from the bible for a need to carry out an experiment on animals because human have importance compared to animals.
Weintraub, Arlene “Biotech’s Freer Hand to Fight Terror.” Business Week. 28 Apr 2004. 1 Nov 2005. <http://www.businessweek.com>.
The aim of Arlene to write this article was to express his ideas on animal testing for cosmetics and to educate his audience on the need to be careful when carrying out experiments on animals due to illnesses such as SARS. The audience of the article is all experts and researchers who carry out an animal testing experiment on animals. In this article, Weintraub describes how the FDA has relaxed their animal testing laws in order to speed the development of new vaccines. With new threats developing such as SARS and bioterrorism weapons such as anthrax and nerve gas, the American society is fearful because they know there is no cure. Since this slackening of the laws, many companies have devised potential vaccines and drugs for these new threats. Weintraub continues, stating that the federal government is planning on providing six billion dollars to improve animal research facilities, while the FDA promises to work tightly with the companies in order to quickly make these vaccines available.
The article has provided me with an insight of the negative effects that arise from animal testing, and some of them include diseases.
Wolfle, Thomas L. “Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates: A Brief History.” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4 (1999). 6 Nov. 2005. <http://web14.epnet.com/>
The aim of Thomas and Wofle to write this article was to educate all interested parties on the need to protect the animals while carrying out the experiments on them. The audience of the journal is the researchers who carry out experiments on animals. Wolfle goes into depth regarding the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 and its amendments in following years. He states that this law has put regulations on dealing with nonhuman primates, such as requiring anyone that interacts with them to promote a psychologically sound environment for the animals. He also questions how animals were being treated before the passing of this act, stating that cages could have been inadequate and improperly trained personnel could have been present. He concludes by describing the ambiguity of these laws since the term, “psychological well-being,” does not have an agreed upon definition.
This article has been of importance because it has displayed how animals were subjected to harmful experiment and unconducive environment while undergoing testing in the past and how that situation has improved. Hence it shows the need to be careful and considerate when carrying out animal testing for cosmetics.