Are Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research? essay

HomeFree EssaysResearchAre Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research?Buy Custom Essay
← Physician-assisted Suicide IssueAchieving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings →

Are Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research?. Custom Are Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research? Essay Writing Service || Are Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research? Essay samples, help

It is already far not a secret for the population of all continents that the pharmatheutical investigations always need the acknowledgment and testing of their results for further permission to produce the medicines. Some experimental subjects are people, who consciously accept testing, and agree to become the part of the experiment, some are animals, who can not stand against and can rarely protect themselves from human beings. Although the attitude towards such experiments are disputable and many people are against the animal derision, when it comes to regarding the testings as a necessary step to a superior aim the most part agrees to sacrifice the animals’ lives. Therefore, some alternative methods like the artificial organs or tissues are created or some means to ease animals’ sufferings are to be implemented. Another question relates to the cosmetics companies’ experiments. People would be surprised to know that most cosmetics and personal care products have already been tested on hundreds and thousand of animals. Then the issue is if there really are no alternative methods for these products testing and if the animals’ sufferings and death can be justified in any way.

Paying attention to the background of the animal researches it is obvious that the first experiments on the living animals date back to the 4th century BC and were provided even by early Greek, Rome and Arab scientists-physicians. Among them we find Aristotel, Erasistratus, Galen, Avenzoar (Hajar, 2011). Nevertheless, these were the medical testings which were needed mostly for surgical procedures. Later on, animals had been used for the biomedical researches very often in many countries and without any restrictions. The scientists using them in their researches were Louis Pasteur, Ivan Pavlov, Rudolf Jaenisch and many others. Only in 1822 the first law protecting animals was issued and afterwards in 1876 The Cruelty To Animals Act in Britain (Hajar, 2011). The cruelty towards animals by testing shampoos, soaps, hair sprays, oven cleaners, and laundry detergents lead to the consumers protest and scientists criticism. Therefore, in the 19th century the humanity started to care about the cruelty towards the animals and create various organizations and societies aimed to animals protection. In 2003, a ban on animals use in cosmetics testings was passed by the European Union. Starting in 2009, and a complete sales ban effective in 2013. Nevertheless, some companies still insist on testing their production on animals. Therefore, millions of animals die each year because of cosmetic, personal care, and household products tests conducted on them.

The tests can differ from shaving the animals' skin and exposing it to corrosive substances to poisoning them with different chemicals. In some cases such chemicals can be placed in animals' eyes in order to improve perfumes, dish-washing detergent, or toothpaste. Having analyzed the article from the Animal Voice, we can see that among the tests there are the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) test, and the Draize eye tests (Important Points, 2007). The LD50 Test was developed by by J.W. Trevan  in 1927. Its essence is forcing animals to ingest a particular substance by being tube fed, be forced to inhale it or have it been put on the skin. The results can be awful: convulsions, shock, paralysis, and bleedings. Nevertheless, the LD50 test was useful for testing such medicines as insulin, and diphtheria antitoxin. This test is considered a "scientific" toxicity measuring providing the numbers quite quickly. However, in a decade the test was criticized and in 1940s some refinements to it were suggested. However, no significant changes were applied to the abovementioned test. Only in 1980, Henry Spira has provoked some movements against the LD50 test which made the scientists community develop some alternatives to it. Another cruel Draize tests consist of putting some chemical substances on the animals’ skin or into the eyes. The subjects to such experiment mostly are rodents. The animals are suffering from3 to 7 seven days from such tests. As a result, the skin and eyes of the animal would become irritated or strongly burnt or ulcerated. For a long time the Draize tests have been accepted as normal by the scientific community, but started to be criticized as LD50 in 1940s. Till nowadays the refinements and alternatives to it are promoted. According to their results some inherently inaccurate except for their inhumanity. For instance, LD tests do pay attention that the toxicity can be different to different types of animals and not the same to a human (Cosmetics tests, 2010). It means that the results of a test will be different even for a mouse and a rat, all the more so, for a human. Moreover, the influence of such factors as age, sex, living conditions and others are also not taken into account in LD test (Cosmetics tests, 2010). This is another proof of these tests inappropriateness.

Despite the criticism, bans, alternatives and acts, the cruel tests on animals are still conducted. The reasons for that is that there are some advantages of such tests for the chemicals and cosmetics producers. These advantages they have do not let some companies refuse from them, but there are those which care about the negative consequences and find the alternatives. However, among the advantages of the animals testings we can name its affordability, and less complexities. As it is obvious, it is much easier and cheaper for a company to find an animal, who can not accept or refuse from being a subject to experiment rather than look for the volunteers who according to the law must be aware of all the possible consequences. As an intelligent creature, even if a human being would agree to become such subject, that would be more pricy for a company to pay for it. Except for the price, the human life is considered to be more important from the moral point of view for many people. Consequently, one human life would cost several animals’ lives, and it would be easier and more “correct” to sacrifice several animals’ lives than several humans’ ones. The reason is again the human’s consciousness and intelligence. If a human dies the family would bewail, if it would be the same about an animal, noone would as the animals do not have the same feelings the humans do, they do not bewail or miss relatives.  Moreover, many testings are made to save humans’ lives and that would be even more logical from some point of view to kill animals in order to save people rather than kill people to save them. The scientists consider that the negative results of the researches should reflect on animals rather than on people, which is also explained by the fact that a human is considered a “higher” creature.

Nevertheless, the disadvantages of the discussed methods prevail. The results of it can be blindness, brain damages, death. As such consequences are inadmissible for human, the animal are chosen. Of course, it would be a nonsense if because of human extinction caused by scientific experiments there left no one for whom to produce medicines or cosmetics.

Many people realize that the experiments on animals are cruel and inhuman. Even Mahatma Gandhi told: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (cited in Hajr, 2011). Consequently, there are the campaigns and associations protecting the animals’ right and “speaking for them”. The campaign against the Draize test was described in the New York Times (Important Points, 2007). It depicted a suffering rabbit and and had the following claim: "How many rabbits does Revlon blind for Beauty's sake?" (cited in Animal voice, 2007). As animals are alive creatures, humans are not their masters and can not treat them as their toys. Each animal has a right to live and to be free. Humans are intelligent beings and have to understand it and protect rather that use and victimize  There are many foundations in the world created to protect the animals. Some of them are: “World Animal Foundation”, “Morris Animal Foundation”, “People for Ethical Treatment of Animals”,  “Uncaged”, and thousand of others. All of them were created for the same purpose- defending animals as weaker creatures, teach people being ethic and kind towards them. These are the volunteer, non-profit organizations holding different campaigns for helping animals, protecting their rights, acknowledging the unaware people about the problems the animals meet and making the Earth better (World Animal Foundation, 2012).

The essence of the Draize and LD50 tests is very important to be revealed to people to make them aware that the animals who suffer greatly and have not deserved it can sacrifice their life in vain. All the details considering the experiments on animals should be revealed to make people think of what is really done. It makes people see that experiments the animals are to be forbidden as the alternative methods should be used, especially to check the cosmetics impact on the eyes, hair, skin. The artificial organs can not always be used to test the medicines, but to mu mind, artificial tissues are to be used when experimenting with cosmetics. If the scientific community complains about the tests inaccuracy, and many companies have refused from the experiment of the kind there should be strict rules which forbid such testing methods. Non-animal test methods should become more profitable for the companies to make them refuse from the animal ones. It means that it is desirable to provide the companies with the reliable tissues and models which would be the subjects to experiments. Testing by using non-toxic ingredients or those which have already been tested by other companies is already approved by such companies as the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (Cosmetics Testing, 2010). Gordon Baxter have once said, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” (cited in Cosmetics Testing, 2010).

As a conclusion, it is necessary to highlight, that though the cosmetics companies try not to tell everything about the testings they conduct on animals, they stay awful and cruel. Nowadays, when it is proven that the alternatives to cosmetics testing on animals exist, the volunteers from the animal foundations, the aware customers and the government are to do everything possible to cease the cruel researches and make the companies use the alternative methods like using artificial tissues and natural ingredients. If the animal experiments can be accessible in case there are no alternatives, and they are aimed to produce some serious medicaments, they are not to be permitted to test chemicals. Human beings are to stay human and respect life and other live beings on Earth, be ethical, and not destroy and kill everything and everyone around.

Are Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research?. Custom Are Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research? Essay Writing Service || Are Scientists and the Media Sugarcoating Animal Research? Essay samples, help

Order Now
Order nowhesitating

Related essays

  1. Achieving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings
  2. US and WTO
  3. Physician-assisted Suicide Issue
  4. Evolution and Ethics of Cyber Journalism
Order now