'Animal Rights vs. Human Health – Comparative Essay\r'

'Jackie Dansky English 1A †69 David Banuelos meet 10, 2011 sensual Rights vs. Human Health Developments of restores, vaccines and treatments for human illnesses halt been through with(p) through savage exam. Over 25 million brutes argon well-tried each course in the United States (Stephanie Ernst, 2008): â€Å"Its impossible to know incisively how m each beasts argon macrocosm employ in research because U. S. laws do non require scientists to stem how many mice, rats, or birds they use” (ASPCA).\r\n tools atomic number 18 used to interpret what medicine effects will do to the human body; they will give the immediate results. The real question when it comes to creature experimentation is not if it is wrong or right, and if it is for the better. Kristina Cook poses that physical trying has benefited medicine, while Natasha Bantwal presents that to a greater extent harm is get intoe than facilitateed. Kristina Cook is an Oxford student in the depart ment of chemistry, and wrote â€Å"Pro-Test: back up animal testing,” arguments sustaining animal testing for medical exam uses.\r\nNatasha Bantwal is a basic writer and wrote â€Å"Arguments Against Animal Testing,” arguments opposing the enjoyment of animals for experimentation. A very common argument is that animals are being ‘tortured’ when they are being well-tried on. Cook approaches the issue quickly stating that â€Å"animal rights activists oft demonise scientists, pretending that they are sadists who enjoy straining animals just for the sake of it. There are unconditioned subjects of the lengths to which scientists go to minimize the suffering of animals.\r\nBut the candid point is that scientists are not sadists: they act in the way that they see fit. ” (Cook, 2006) However, the arguments are beyond that. They divide two common grounds: animal testing has helped scientific in ally and medically, and that animal testing has been erroneous. Although Cook and Bantwal harbor that animal testing has been helpful, they have unlike approaches and viewpoints on how helpful it really has been. Cook declares that â€Å"vaccines, antibiotics, transplant surgeries, medical devices… and other nurtures would not be here at present if animal testing ad not been used. ” (Cook, 2006) As a counterargument, Bantwal asserts â€Å"the most commonly help apprehension (or rather misconception) of animal testing is that it is necessary for the development of cures, vaccines, and other treatments for human illness. ” (Bantwal) Animal rights activists are attempting to forfeit all animal testings. There have been alternatives reported, that none can match as more than accuracy and precision as animals would.\r\nBantwal uses pubic louse as an example of ridding animal testing: â€Å"with countless truthful animals, billions of dollars and more than 30 to 40 years being spent on the war against cancer, o ne would sojourn concrete results show up if animal experimentation was actually as effective as it is do out to be… Many cancer coin and organizations have claimed that we are now losing the war against cancer because this animal-based cancer research is failing, and it just downright stinks. ” (Bantwal) She implies that animals don’t need to be tested on if they can’t even help to convey the cure of big illnesses.\r\nCook, unlike Bantwal, looks at the frappe half full. She considers all the drugs that have been animal tested in the past that have been successful, and looks forward to the more cures that will be discovered through this sign of experimentation. All cures and vaccines are tested on animals, but are animals a reliable source when it comes to vaccines? Bantwal discusses about(predicate) the undependable basis of animals’ effect on a particular drug compared to a human’s effect. For example, she pronounces that there has be en no progress in the cure for aid because animals are incapable of getting the AIDS disease.\r\nCook affirms that testing drugs in animal help researchers find the potential dangers and faults it will achieve, and to understand â€Å"the metabolic process of drug compounds and consequent effects seen throughout the body. ” (Cook, 2006) She states that the alternatives of animal testing, such as a computer generator, won’t be as sufficient. Bantwal states â€Å"[Pro-Animal Testing] believe that if animal experimentation is stopped, then it will be at the expense of life and the human health. (Bantwal) She tries to compensate that obliterating any and all animal testing will not have a big changed impact in the medical field. She then argues that â€Å"it is dangerous and fraudulent to return data retrieved from one species to another entirely different species. ” (Bantwal) Cook does admit that there have been errors in the field. Both Cook and Bantwal use the Thalidomide as an example of rebuttal. It came out in 1956 as a tranquilising for pregnant mothers to overcome morning sickness. It was successful in animal testing, and spread around the world in a fewer years.\r\nUnfortunately, it caused birth defects in the womb. Bantwal quotes ‘ gumshoe testing’ and states, â€Å"tens of thousands of children who’s mothers had used this drug were born(p) with severe deformities. ” (Bantwal) Cook argues that if they had done more testings on animals, that the birth defect would have been detected. She understands that the scientists messed up because they forgot to test prenatal animals. She attacks the animal rights group with: â€Å"animal rights groups project an error resulting from an absence of testing with one resulting from conducting tests on animals. (Cook, 2006) Cook believes that they don’t understand what they are arguing. Their example of the Thalidomide is really suggesting to do more animal testing so then it will be more accurate and precise: â€Å"a few more animals, and countless human lives would have been saved. ” (Cook, 2006) Overall, animals are continued being used as experiments for all humans’ health. Whether for or against animal testing, everybody has to be appreciative and acknowledge the benefits scientists and animals have brought. It’s like a competition between animals and humans: which race should be protected more?\r\nBoth Kristina Cook and Natasha Bantwal treat their perspectives and only agree upon one thing: animal testing has helped scientists and the medical field. Now, which is more important to you: animal rights or human health? Work Cited: Bantwal, Natasha. â€Å"Arguments Against Animal Testing. ” Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. ;http://www. buzzle. com/articles/argument-against-animal-testing. html;. Cook, Kristina. â€Å"spike-science | Article | Pro-Test: Supporting Animal Testing. ” Spiked: Humanity Is Underrated. 23 Feb. 2006. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. ;http://www. spiked-online. om/articles/0000000CAF94. htm;. Ernst, Stephanie. â€Å"Animal Use and nuisance Statistics: The Shocking Numbers. ” Change. org News. 5 Oct. 2008. Web. 05 Mar. 2011. ;http://news. change. org/stories/animal-use-and-abuse-statistics-the-shocking-numbers;. â€Å"11 Facts about Animal Testing | Do Something. ” Volunteer | Do Something. ASPCA. Web. 05 Mar. 2011. ;http://www. dosomething. org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-animal-testing;. Long, Tony. â€Å"Oct. 1, 1957: Thalidomide Cures break of day Sickness, But … ” Wired. com. 01 Oct. 2008. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. ;http://www. wired. com/science/discoveries/news/2008/09/dayintech_1001;.\r\n'