Why Animal Testing is Wrong if There Are Alternatives

With so many problems going on in the world today sometimes we forget to think about others. The last thing that comes to mind when you are considering problems are animals. Animals have been used for testing purposes date back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. There is no reason to make animals suffer for our own health if there are alternative methods to discover if products are safe for humans to use. Some of these alternatives include: modification of animal tests, skin irritation testing, computers, and even tier testing.
No body denies animal testing has been conducted for centuries; this may make some people believe that it ok and there is nothing wrong with it. Just because something has been done by people doesn’t make it ok. Testing has been dated back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans using vivisection on animals. Vivisection is cutting a animal open while it is still alive for experimental purposes such as testing products. In the 17th century a philosopher Rene Descartes proposed a new philosophy that animals didn’t feeling or understand anything because of this many people believed that animal testing was morally ok because the animal didn’t suffer. Then came another philosopher named Francois-Maire Arouet de Voltarie who proved that animal were beings that could feel. This was founded by a vivisection that proved that animals had organs of feeling. For the next two centuries philosophers went back and forth on moral issues involving vivisection. The start of organized groups to stop animal cruelty starts in the 19th century. Finally a law was passed in the 1890’s that stopped painful animal testing for teaching and showing already accepted facts. One of the first things that were done to show the public what was happening was Mark Twain’s story called “A Dog Tales”. Twain’s story was a protest to animal cruelty and was written in the eyes of a dog. There were many acts that were passed during the 20th century that would change the rules for testing of products. One of the most famous one that is still followed today with a few changes is known at the time as The Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This act would make sure that products were safe for humans to use because so many people died from medicines, food and cosmetics. This act would make animal testing more prominent. So after this there was another act passed called the Animal Welfare Act. This protected the welfare of animals. It ensured that researcher would minimizes animal pain and distress whenever possible using humane euthanasia (Evans).
Certainly, with so many new products and advances in old ones being done, someone has to ensure they are safe for human use. This is where animals come into play. “More than 100 million animals every year suffer and die in cruel chemical, drug, food and cosmetic tests, biology lessons, medical training exercises, and curiosity driven medical experiments”(PETA). How can people just sit back and let this happen if these facts are known and not hidden from the public? There are so many different kinds of tests being done on animals every day. Many are done to ensure the safety of a human. Many animals are injected with a disease that normally wouldn’t happen to that species so they can see if what there testing works or to see the way the disease works and hope it works the same way in a human. There are many fields of work that use animals the most, including: psychology, military, and space. These three fields are also known to be crueler than other field. This may be why they choose animals over human volunteers because they can treat and do things that no human would ever allow. Another thing animals are very commonly used for is dissection in schools. “A reasonable estimate is that about six million vertebrate animals are dissected yearly in U.S. high schools alone, with an additional, unknown number used in colleges and middle and elementary schools. The number of invertebrate animals dissected is probably comparable to that of vertebrates” (Animal). While most of these animals are dead when they are being dissected they are treated horribly before they are killed. Surely products do need to be tested but are these the right ways?
Undoubtedly some people believe that animal testing should be outlawed all together. This is just not realistic but it does make you wonder what would happen if it was. Some believe it would cause more harm than good. From history you can tell that when something is outlawed it never fully stops. Animal testing would still be done in underground locations but this time there are no longer regulations on how to treat the animals, which means the animals would be treated like objects not beings. Stopping testing on animals could also cause human deaths because testing isn’t being done on new products but I think it would just encourage for scientist to find and use new alternatives. Surely millions of animals would be saved and not treated with horrible circumstances but there is also an advantage when it comes to spending. There would be a lot of money saved and not in the sense of the spending on testing but all the money spent trying to stop animal testing. With all the advantages of non-animal testing there does come some concern. “Disadvantages to non-animal methods are that it is very difficult to mimic an integrated living system, and the range of historical data available for animal tests does not yet exist for in vitro methods and computer analyses”(Welsh58). Over time these problems can be worked out but in the meantime there are many animals everyday being saved because of new alternatives. While I was interviewing a woman who has deeply involved and fought for animal rights, “If animals shouldn’t be used for testing purposes then how do you suppose we get certain tests done on new products that could possible harm humans if not tested?” She replied with “ Human volunteers would be one alternative that could stop a small amount of animal testing. This does not mean to have people volunteer for experiments that could kill them. Many people would do experiment for science.” I agree with her but I do know this won’t solve the problem but it will make a difference and every little thing could help.

Of course there are many reasons why people believe animal testing should be stopped. If there are alternatives that don’t hurt animals then why would we keep using the harmful ways? There is the moral aspect where everything deserves the right to live and not to live in a state of fear. Another reason many people are against animal testing is that it isn’t always reliable. There has been so many drugs that were passed in the United States that had to be recalled because of side affect. Many companies will even look over many errors done during experiments. If we can’t guarantee that the test won’t show any kind of result then why do it? Animals can’t stand up for they can’t tell you they don’t want to do something but no being wants to be tortured or even killed. To every con there is a pro. Chimpanzees are know to have 99% percent of the same genes as humans, so much experiments done on them would show how it would affect a human and maybe safe a life. How is to say whose life is more important though. Every being should have a chance to live and not treated badly just for the name of science especially if there are alternatives.
Being there are a prominent amount of alternatives to animal testing that are less cruel and should be used. Some of them include: modification of animal tests, skin irritation testing, measurement of PH, in vitro methods, computers and tier testing. “Regulatory agencies in the United States and in Europe recently approved another sort of replacement test. This involves the use of a "synthetic skin," called Corrositex, which can be used in place of animals to test chemicals for skin corrositivity--that is, to see whether a substance will corrode or burn the skin”(Alternatives).

This would be a great alternative because no one is harmed in it and the testing of the product is still being done to insure its safety. Computer research can replace all the dissection done in school very easily. This would be done by doing a using a dissection model on a computer or you can even use a plastic model instead of use millions real animals. Medical students are even starting to use some of these alternatives. There is also the use of human tester which are very commonly used for cosmetics. Tier testing could really stop the use of many animals or make sure animals won’t get hurt. “The common approach to tier testing for eye irritancy is to measure the substance’s pH, then to conduct cell toxicity studies with cultures, and finally to do limited in vivo tests to test the results predicted from the first two steps. At each stage, the test material can strike out if it exhibits certain criteria” (Welsh76). When it comes to the long term effects of drugs in vitro methods could be a great alternative. In vitro method tests for certain aspects that cant normally be seen by using cells and tissues in a culture. It is even thought that this method is more accurate then animal use. There is no justified to use animals as a testing source in the 21st century. We have so many safer humane ways of testing animals, it is not the 18th century anymore and we have no excuse for what we are doing to are animals when there are alternatives out there.

“Indeed, animal research in antiquated and cruel, often impeding discovery. In numerous cases, important findings have been or could have been made without the use of animals. People should not have to choose between inflicting pain and suffering on animals and finding medical cures. New technologies, alternatives, and clinical and epidemiological studies in humans can provide us better, more relevant answers without causing animal suffering”(Animals). There is no reason for 100 million animals to suffer and die every year for our own health when there are so many alternatives to animal testing. As Sir Aurobindo (who was a freedom fighter) stated “Life is life - whether in a cat, or dog or man. There is no difference there between a cat or a man. The idea of difference is a human conception for man's own advantage.”

School's Stance on Abortion

My whole entire life I was taught that no one could tell you what you could or could not do with your life or your body. With this being said I believe that people have the choice to do what they want with their body. No school, church, or the government can tell you differently. There are many topics that are extremely controversial and should not be brought up or discussed in certain places such as schools. One issue that I think a school should not take a stance on is abortion. Women have gained so many rights in the past decade and the woman’s movement has come so far. Yet, we cannot even preserve the right for a woman to decide if she is ready to become a mother or even carry a baby in her own body.

In the past month or so I have seen many articles pertaining to abortion and how Northern Illinois University is making budget cuts on the woman’s resource department. After reading many responses of students I have come to the conclusion that NIU is taking a side when it comes to abortion. Surely we have to make some budget cuts and there is really no right place to make these cuts, but woman sources should not be one of the first cut. Northern Illinois University is a public university which means that our money is going to the school through tax’s and we should get a choice in what we are cutting. Sure NIU doesn’t need to support abortion or say it is ok but they should provide every legal choice a woman has when it comes to her body. I’m not saying abortion is necessarily the moral thing to do but the statistics do speak for themselves. According to the center for bio-life reform 52% of woman who are having abortions are under the age of 25 and 64.4% of woman have never been married. These are the average credentials of a college student. So why would any school take something away that could be useful to some college students.

There is no law in Illinois stating that a woman cannot receive an abortion. So why are people all over threatening to take the choice away? Even if there was a law against it I don’t believe it would stop people. If anything it would make woman go about receiving an abortion in hazards ways. If someone wants something done they will find some way of doing it. So why put people in unsafe situations? Cutting federal funding for Planned Parenthood for abortion will not help anyone. I’m not saying that NIU should be putting all of their funding for Planned Parenthood toward abortion but people need all the resources they can receive. So either  being abortion, condoms, sex education, testing, or just someone to talk to Planned Parenthood deserve the money they are receiving.

So editor, by cutting a program like Planned Parenthood at NIU or anywhere will do more harm than help. The woman’s resource center at NIU does more than provide information on where to get abortions; they provide breast cancer screenings, body image issues, relationship problems, and birth control. Sure, some of the services provided may clash with some people’s beliefs but no one is forcing them to take part in them. It’s there for the people who need the help  and isn’t hurting anyone. So by cutting the budget at NIU, you are not only cutting healthy resources, you are cutting jobs and pushing the woman’s movement back. Woman should be allowed to do what they want with their own body. 

 pro choice not pro abortion


"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother." Margaret Sanger

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

In a world filled with so many new technologies that try to make an average humans life easier; there are bound to be downfalls. Nicholas Carr is a writer who always used to love getting caught up in books and researching information. Things have changed though. He’s noticed that he loses concentration while reading and finds himself forcing his attention back to the book just after three pages. Carr believes there is one thing to blame; the internet. People are just looking for at most three paragraphs to answer their questions. That’s why the world of web research has taken off. People are now getting lazier and only want their questions answered and that’s it. While I read Nicholas Carr’s essay I couldn’t help but analyze it. There were four things that I did while analyzing. The first is separating the facts and opinions of Nicholas Carr. After that I identified the evidence. Following, i identified the cause and effects. Finally I went on to describe the tone of the essay.

While reading Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid”, I found many facts and opinions. It is very important in analyzing writing to know the difference between the two. If you do not know the difference you may believe something that shouldn’t be, or even become confused about the topic. I found in Carr’s essay that there was a abundant amount of opinions. Normally I would not consider this a solid read; but the way he did and facts I found very important. Carr’s bottom line opinion was that the internet is making all of us not think as much and just search for a quick answer to everything. The way Nicholas put in examples of other technologies that have changed the way people think and live back up his theory on the internet. One technology that Carr points out that changed the way we lived is the clock. “The clocks methodical ticking helped bring into being the scientific mind and the scientific man. But it also took something away. As the late MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum observed in his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, the conception of the world that emerged from the widespread use of timekeeping instruments “remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality.” In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock” (Carr). By Carr stating this I think he very strongly backs up his opinions. If a clock can change the way we think and live just think about the way the internet has changed us and what it can do as technology advances more. I can distinguish between Carr’s facts and opinions because his facts are all backed up with research, and experiments done by mostly universities and scientists.

The next step in analyzing a article is identifying the evidence and the arguments presented. There were three main arguments that stood out to me as the reader. Carr’s first argument to me was the way every source is now creating shortcuts to make readers more interested. Many magazines and papers are now including summaries in their work. “When, in March of this year, The New York Times decided to devote the second and third pages of every edition to article abstracts, its design director, Tom Bodkin, explained that the “shortcuts”would give readers a quick “taste” of the day’s news”(Carr). With this being said it just points out that the worlds is getting lazy and are relying on shortcuts; so different media’s have to play by the new media rules. Another Argument of Carr’s that stood out to me was “The internet is a machine designed for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information, and its legions of programmers are intent on finding the “one best method””(Carr). This just points out that the creation of the internet was to create a machine to be that best and supply all the information you could possibly need. The last argument that stood out to me was the way Carr believes that Google and other search engines are trying to replace the human brain. He fears that the internet is one day just completely replace the use for the human intelligence. Why would anyone have to learn anything if there is a source that knows everything and all you have to do to find something is make a couple clicks with your mouse? In Carr’s mind the internet could someday be a scary thing.

Identifying cause and effect is the second to last step in analyzing a reading. Carr’s use of cause and effect was not greatly used. There was really only one main cause and effect that I felt was important. With the invention of the internet; many people have become dependent on it as a source. Not long ago people would have to read a book, interview people or do experiments to find the answers to their questions. With the amount of search engines, like Google people no longer have to spend hours looking for answers. Some like Nicholas Carr may think this is a bad thing. People are no longer enjoying to read and are just speeding through life and not enjoying learning and enriching their brain. This cause and effect is a lot like many other technologies that where invented in the past decades. With new things comes change.

The final step to analyzing is discovering the tone of the paper. I found Carr’s tone mostly serious. He is trying to point out that the internet could be causing more problems than good and something should be done about it. I believe the way he went about using his tone I think really helped strengthen his article. He barely put in any of his emotions; which makes writing sometimes weak. In his opening paragraph he did use a joke to get the reader attention but he went about it the right way and strengthened his work if anything. The use of Carr’s language was also very affective. He used easy, strong words to help the reader understand and believe what he was saying.

With so much change constantly going on in our world it is important for people like, Nicholas Carr to step back and think about what’s happening and if it’s the right thing. Carr is concerned that with the large reliance on the internet, people are not using their brain as much as they should be. People are always just looking for the easy way and that is exactly what the internet is supplying. Sure people are smart and getting smarter but is it because there relying on new sources that just give them the answer and don’t have to work for it? Like every college student I rely on the internet for everything. Anything I don’t know I say “just Google it”. This just points out what Carr is trying to get across. I agree with Carr completely. I used love to open a book and get caught up in it when I was younger. These days I don’t read a book unless I have to for class and even then I might just skim to find the main idea. This article was a great piece that held up many good arguments, opinions and facts, cause and effect, and a great use of tone.

           

GOOGLE

           

           

           

Letter to a Southern Baptist Minister

Letter to a Southern Baptist Minister

Edward O. Wilson is an evolutionary biologist who grew up in a strong Christian family. Although he was exposed to strong beliefs for most of his childhood, he no longer is a member to that faith. With so many growing problems in the world today we all have to do something to try to stop it. Wilson writes a Baptist that he thinks should help with one large problem going on in the world today. Wilson states that “The creation-living nature-is in deep trouble. Scientists estimate that if habitat conversion and other destructive human activities continue at their present rates, half the species of plants and animals on earth could be either gone or at least fated for early extinction by the end of the century”(464). After stating this anybody could very well ask, why choice faith? Wilson beliefs that if faith and biology were combined they could easily solve this problem. Everyone wants a better place for their children and strive to achieve this at every aspect of their lifestyles. Yet, in reality we are doing the opposite. Why haven’t any religious leader done anything to stop this with all the power they hold? Do they only care about preparing for their afterlife? This is very concerning to Wilson because many people believe that the world will end in the near future. Many people who believe in the Christian faith agree that the world will end in their own lifespan. Why though is it that they believe that what every little mistake you made on earth, like not believing in some god, you will be paying for the rest of your life and afterlife? How can any faith that is supposed to stand for peace and love ever do such acts to others and believe this will happen to anyone who does not believe in their beliefs? Although we all believe in different things we all have to share this plant we call home. This is why Wilson believes that science and faith should be put together this once and do some change, we have to stop people from destroying their home.

Wilson’s letter to a Baptist minister was very intriguing to me. I completely agree with Wilson’s thesis and other ideas. I would never think to combine biology and religion because they are such controversial theories. For centuries people have fought other which theory is right when considering how humans were put on earth. Both biology and faith have completely different ideas pertain to this. So why would you combine these two powers when they believe in different things? Wilson believes we need to set aside the difference in both powers in this life or death situation. When it comes to putting aside differences and trying to fix this planet I agree with Wilson completely. Faith and biology are two very powerful sources of insight. In this crazy world we need to rely on something to believe in so we have less to worry about. This being either faith or biology, we need to know why humans were put here on earth and both ideas achieve this. This being said we are faced with a huge problem that threatens are life’s and lifestyles. So like Wilson I know we have to do something to stop people from destroying are home. Could faith and biology be the answer? Wilson also points out how some religions only seem to care about their afterlife and will do anything to secure a good one. Treating people like outcasts just because they do not believe what you believe is wrong. Why should anyone have to suffer for believing what they do? It is not right to tell people that they will suffer in hell for the rest of their afterlife. I was raised to believe what I wanted but not to force it on others. There is no justification for anyone to force believes on anyone else. Then if you do not trust these ideas, that makes you a bad person and deserve to burn in hell. In final consideration, I would never think of combining the two but I do think it needs to happen sometime in the near future to fix this possible catastrophic event.  We all need to do are part and try to stop this from happening; this either being Wilson’s way or your own.