“Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.”
In the age of scientific advancement, experiments are everyday phenomena, whether it is conducted on animals or humans. Animal testing has been a matter of concern and debate for many decades now. Many organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), World Animal Protection, and many others are vocal about this practice. But, many feel that these experiments are necessary for the evolution of science, especially in medical areas. Therefore, in the subsequent paragraphs, both views will be discussed, and a conclusion will be derived.
In the first place, it is a fact that scientists or researchers need subjects for ascertaining whether the result of their experiments are effective or not. It is not possible to employ them on any willing humans as it can be fatal to their lives. Sacrificing human/s for multiple trials is a loss for the whole kind as every individual contributes to the betterment of society. Moreover, including an individual in these examinations has its own hassles as family members and dependents may not have the same opinion as to the individual ready for self-sacrifice. This might lead to legal battles and moral dilemmas. Even if licit documents are signed, people tend to find loopholes that may be problematic for the researchers and the organizations at large.
Although these human studies can be convoluted, conducting them on unprotected animals is unwarranted. Including animals to understand the reactions of the newly-developed medicines or vaccines can be trouble-free compared to humans as no one is dependent on them. But, continuous attempts can have an effect on the continuity of the species. Furthermore, humans may be of high caliber, but they do not have the right to exterminate the life of other organisms on earth. Apart from that, various alternate techniques like in-vitro testing and simulators that have been developed can be used to perform these experiments without causing impairment in any life form.
In the end, I would like to conclude that instead of depending on animals or humans for testing drugs, cosmetics or chemicals, it is better to come up with alternative ways and ply them without causing ethical issues.
Estimated band6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
Response 02
341 words
It is irrefutable that there are various scientific procedures carried out throughout the globe on innocent creatures, and this frequently generates a distinguishable deal of heated debate. Some individuals foster that these must be forbidden since it is against the moral ethics to harm animals. In contrast, the opposite school of thought believe it is appropriate to conduct experiments on them. In the forthcoming paragraphs, this exposition will elucidate both the perspectives from a different viewpoint with credible illustrations and my certainty in the former stance.
To start with, with the substantial improvements in contemporary research programs, animals are used enormously to develop vaccines, medicines and other essential products for mankind. Some people claim that it is dangerous to them and can have adverse effects on the ecosystem and food chain, eventually resulting in the extinction of species. There are numerous alternate factors which can be adapted to perform these experiments. To exemplify, criminals accused of fatal crimes and on the verge of receiving capital punishment can be used for researching as their survival has minimal impact on society. Therefore, animals can be set free rather than using them to benefit human beings.
On the other side, the rest of the population argues that it is more reliable and effective to research species as they are massive chance of having the same characteristics similar to humans. It is also believed that early man had evolved from apes many centuries earlier and led a life similar to animals in dense forests. Hence, scientists prefer to examine creatures such as monkeys, chimpanzees and gorillas to perform experiments. For instance, during the development of coronavirus vaccination, the preliminary trials were injected into monkeys, and when there were no detrimental side effects, it was given to the public. Hence, it is of remarkable significance to perform basic trials on flora.
Taking everything into consideration, although animals play a crucial role while performing research, it is inhuman to make them suffer for our own merits and should be ceased with immediate effect and supplanted with criminals.
Estimated band6.5
7.0
6.0
6.5
6.0
Response 03
281 words
It is true that animals are used for research in a variety of sitting, including tests to determine the safety of drugs, cosmetics and other substances. Although reasons can be given to justify this view, I personally believe that these experiments should be banned because it is ethically unacceptable.
There are several reasons why some people support using the animal in the medical research and other products testing. Firstly, the human is the important being on the planet so everything should be done to ensure human safety and survival. Animal testing enables scientific and researchers to test the safety of medication and other substance with which humans have regular contacts. Drugs, for instance, may pose significant harm to humans, so testing them on animals first give researchers good chance to determine drug safety before human trials are performed.
Secondly, researchers aim to minimise the suffering that animals experience in experiments by giving painkiller and anesthetic drugs. However, I would strongly agree with those who believe that animal experiments should be banned. Animal right activists (who defend animal right) argue that the lives of animals should be respected. The benefits of research using animals do not justify the suffering caused and the ethical debate against animals testing. Also, there are alternative non-animals methods of testing. For instance, computerised human - patient simulators and In vitro testing which is defined as a research using human cells and tissue can be used instead of using animals. In conclusion, there are some convincing arguments for and against animal testing, but I strongly believe that we as humans have no moral right to do experiments on animals and we should do everything we can to protect them.
Estimated band7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Response 04
272 words
Because of scientific research for drugs and pharmaceutical products, millions of animals suffer and die every year. Animal testing is a controversial topic that causes disagreement among the public, with some praising its need and others criticizing it. In this essay, both these views will be considered and elaborated upon .
To begin with, animal rights activists and organizations across the globe, like PETA, are pressurizing the government to prohibit experiments on animals. Indeed, animals suffer greatly in many cases during research. It is a pity that they are usually caged in small compartments in enclosed environments. These animals are dissected and injected with all sorts of chemicals to see what results are produced. There is no rationale for this type of suffering, and it violates ethical principles. Although strict regulations are meant to minimize animals’ suffering in research, this has still become the norm .
The use of animals for medical research and other product testing is also justified for many reasons. Nowadays, a growing number of people are in need of high-quality medicines, and these people desire quality medicine to cure and protect them from illness. Using animals, scientists and researchers can test the safety of medications and other substances that humans regularly come into contact with. For example, drugs can have drastic negative effects on humans, so assessing their safety on animals first gives researchers a good chance to determine whether the drugs are safe for humans.
In conclusion, the irrefutable benefits that can be gained from conducting medical experiments on animals for safety and life-saving reasons should justify their use, despite the fact that it is immoral to do so.
Estimated band7.5
7.0
7.0
8.0
7.0
Response 05
344 words
Vivisection, or the practice of performing operations on live animals for medical research, has long been a sensitive issue, provoking various arguments for and against it. Although there is no denying the fact that experimenting on animals is cruel, I would still argue that it is necessary.
On the one hand, those arguing against vivisection claim that experimentation on animals in the name of medical science is downright cruel, regardless of the benefits. As a matter of fact, animals, like mice and monkeys are born and reared directly in the laboratory to be exposed to certain chemicals and even viruses like HIV, which oftentimes have led to their death. Opponents of vivisecgtion often hold firmly to the belief that animals, in the same way as man, have feelings and therefore deserve animal rights. However, I believe that this belief stem from mere sentimental anthropomorphism and human beings do have the right to operate on animals for the sake of medical research.
Advocates of vivisection, on the other hand, argue that it is morally right and sound, on principle, that humans make use of animals for the sake of humanity. Indeed, this is the way for us humans to survive and prosper as the most advanced species on the planet and to ensure our continued evolutionary success. History has shown that the direct experimentation on animals has resulted in many of the greatest inventions in the field of medicine that have saved countless human lives. For example, the advent of vaccination would never have been possible without the experimentation on mice. Cruel as it may be to operate on animals, it would be even more cruel to let animal rights stand in the way of solving some of the most serious plights and plagues, which have claimed millions of human lives.
In conclusion, I believe that it is acceptable to operate on animals for medical research for the benefits of human beings as this practice has yielded many useful medical inventions that have allowed human beings to survive and thrive up until the present day.
Estimated band8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Response 06
269 words
It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. While I tend towards the viewpoint that animal testing is morally wrong, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines.
On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured. Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of research.
On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
In conclusion, it seems to me that it would be wrong to ban testing on animals for vital medical research until equally effective alternatives have been developed.
People who work publicly to protect animals from harm and unfair treatment.
From the essay
To begin with, animal rights activists and organizations across the globe, like PETA, are pressurizing the government to prohibit experiments on animals.
Products that are not intended for treating or preventing illness or other health needs.
From the essay
Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
Something bad that is considered needed to achieve a good result.
From the essay
Personally, I agree with the banning of animal testing for non-medical products, but I feel that it may be a necessary evil where new drugs and medical procedures are concerned.
