Category: Animal Abuse

When speaking of the context of the 21st century, the notions of cruelty and violence do not seem to fit there, considering all the positive changes taking place around. However, while the vast majority of people take care of their environment, others desperately look for a way to exploit everything around them. One of the most vivid examples of such cruelty is animal testing, in terms of which animals are to suffer from medical or cosmetic experiments. In fact, it was established in the recent survey that 65% of the respondents considered medical animal testing to be ethically acceptable (Kabene & Baadel, 2019). On the contrary, more than 80% of participants regarded cosmetics testing on animals as an inappropriate violation. The survey results claim that animal testing is absolutely necessary for terms of medical studies. However, if previously researchers had limited opportunities in terms of anatomy investigation, todays world is replete with safe and accurate data. Hence, I believe that animal testing should be banned due to its cruelty, discrepancy, and obsolescence.

First and foremost, experiments held on animals are, by all means, inhuman and violent. When testing a substance or injection, animals have three options for how the experiment finishes. In the best-case scenario, testing did not harm the animal, and the overall outcome for the researchers is positive. There is also a chance of the animals immediate death after the experiment. In the worst possible case, however, the animal struggles with poisonous injections that destroy it from the inside. People who act in favor of such experiments may claim that many of todays biological achievements were made due to animal testing, and they would be right. However, the successful outcome rate is miserable if compared to all the animals that were mistakenly killed by scientists. Furthermore, most of the animals chosen for testing are to spend the rest of their lives in captivity with no particular intention but to allow one to do experiments without double-checking the calculations.

Secondly, such an approach to investigations and experiments is obsolete. The technological advancements of the 21st century allow people to be one step away from commercial trips to outer space. However, people still refer to animal testing when dealing with medications and cosmetics. Modern technology provides scientists with a variety of alternative testing methods that have practically identical prices. The most widespread alternative is stem cells  a procedure, which allows scholars to evaluate the cells grown in Petri dishes on the subject of disease and toxin testing (Kabene & Baadel, 2019). Another available option to replace experiments on animals is 3D images applications. With these images, scientists obtain access to the high-resolution pictures of the human bodys slightest constituents like tissues. Furthermore, advanced technology permits the image to be modified according to ones requirements. As mice and rats are quite frequently used as samples to investigate behavioral patterns, their work could be successfully replaced by computer simulation. This device implies exploring the peculiarities of human behavior in order to collect the data and later apply it to the actual testing process (Kabene & Baadel, 2019). Moreover, cosmetics testing can also be executed without animals intervention  with the help of biochips.

Finally, the very concept of animal testing is highly controversial. Although it is a generally accepted fact that some animals, e.g., rats, have a constitution similar to humans, they will never be the same as human samples. Hence, when testing medication on animals, even a positive outcome of the experiment will never guarantee the same result for a human being. Regarding this point, the whole concept of these experiments makes no practical sense. Thus, the struggles of thousands of animals are not even completely justified by the desire to help humanity. The lack of animal testing supporters is especially evident nowadays due to the change of historical context. If previously the only choice scientists had was the one between animals and human beings, today there is a whole different paradigm. Consequently, animal testing is now perceived as an act of violence rather than a part of a scientific project.

Considering all the arguments, it should be concluded that animal testing should be banned due to its cruelty, discrepancy, and obsolescence. Although the vast majority of people are now still supporting the idea of exploiting animals to conduct various experiments. However, the research has shown that medical and beauty segments are now able to find a safe alternative to animal testing. The major idea behind such dissonance stems from peoples unawareness of the subject, as they consider such shifts expensive and inefficient. Hence, one of the major goals people like me should pursue is to properly educate citizens who directly influence the market. Once the vast majority is familiarized with the arguments presented above, there is a chance to overcome the discrepancy, irrelevance, cruelty, and obsolescence of this process. The future concerns of the issue may be focused on the issues of zoos and circuses that also violate all the animals freedoms.

Reference

Kabene, S., & Baadel, S. (2019). Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 12(15), 1-11.

Abstract

This paper explores how the principles of the character-based ethical approach can be applied to the discussion of using animals in the medical research as well as in laboratory experiments. The specific type of the character-based ethical approach that is applied to the topic in the paper is constructive Christian proposal offered by Donna Yarri. Constructive Christian proposal is only one type among many forms of character-based ethics, but this particular approach needs to be applied to the topic of the research.

The reason is that this ethical theory helps to understand that because animals physical, mental, and sensitive characteristics are comparable to human ones, animals have the same moral rights as humans. Therefore, the paper aims to provide not only application of the theory to the study but also strengths and weaknesses in discussing animals in medical research from the perspective of this particular type of character-based ethics.

Ethics of Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments

A highly debatable issue of ethics of using animals in medical research and experiments can be viewed from different ethical points. One of the important ethical perspectives is the character-based approach.

This perspective is connected with the idea that humans have no right to exploit other animals irrespective of possible benefits to humans because animals should have the same rights as humans (Foëx, 2007, p. 750). Donna Yarri offered a constructive Christian proposal by which we as humans must respect moral rights of animals because animals physical, mental, and sensitive characteristics are comparable to human ones.

Constructive Christian proposal is based on the idea that no morally relevant distinction can be found between all humans as a species and all animals as a class (Kao, 2006, p. 535). Therefore, this character-based ethical theory is directly related to the problem of animals in medical research because it states that humans should not perform experimentation on animals whose cognitive capacities are equal to or greater than that of marginal humans if we are not willing to so use marginal humans (Yarri, 2005, p. 52).

However, Yarri (2005) suggests pragmatic way to distinguish among the kind of experiments that would be permissible from those that would not be (p. x). Thus, constructive Christian proposal is aimed to restrict animal experimentation while still allowing some.

Yarris constructive Christian proposal is a strong ethical theory because it explains the Christian traditions that presume a more positive assessment of animal (Kao, 2006, p. 536). On one hand, Yarri offers to use pet modal to distinguish between permissible and not permissible use of animals in medical research and experiments. Thus, if people agree that the experiment can be conducted using their pets as experimental subjects, the experiment is permissible.

Moreover, Yarri suggests putting subjects of experiments for pet adoption after it ends. Furthermore, Yarri claims that humans should stop ontologizing animals into one of two categories: those we use (and thereby exploit or abuse) and those we love (and accordingly cherish and protect) (Kao, 2006, p. 536).

As stated by Yarri (2005), according to Christian tradition before the Fall, all of creation appeared to peacefully coexisted and had a vegetarian diet (p. 109). Moreover, it is scientifically proved that animal existence predates human existence, so we have to be careful about assuming or asserting that animals exist only or primarily for human use (Yarri, 2005, p. 115).

Hence, putting human above animals is ethically wrong, and if humans can sacrifice their beloved pets for the medical experiment like God sacrificed his Son, this kind of medical research is considered to be ethical.

While applying constructive Christian approach to the research, it is important to pay attention to some weaknesses of the theory. According Yarri (2005), we should put ourselves on the place of a creature to be experimented upon and examine whether we would be willing to allow such treatment to be accorded to selves, if it would result in a comparable level of suffering (105).

At the same time, Yarri present pet owners to decide whether it is ethical or not to conduct medical experiments with their pets. Thus, it is still a decision made by the owner, not by the subject of the experiment. Hence, Yarri uses Christian ethical principle of love to all people and sacrifice for the people and at the same time pragmatic way of use of animals in medical experiments and researches.

It is possible to state that constructive Christian proposal developed by Donna Yarri is one more important approach to value the morality of the choice between ethical and not ethical medical experiments involving animals. The character-based ethical claim that if the acquisition of pure knowledge is considered adequate justification for the infliction of pain, the scientists may be hard pressed to explain why human beings should be exempted (Bowd, 1980, p. 225).

Constructive Christian proposal by Donna Yarri explains that humans should understand that animals physical, mental, and sensitive characteristics are comparable to human ones. Hence sacrifice of animals in case of medical experiments should be merited with the same ethical standards as sacrifice of humans.

References

Bowd, A. D. (1980). Ethics and animal experimentation. American Psychologist, 35(2), 224-225.

Foëx, B. A. (2007). The ethics of animal experimentation. Emergency Medicine Journal, 24(11), 750-758.

Kao, G. Y. (2006). The ethics of animal experimentation: A critical analysis and constructive Christian proposal. Political Theology, 7(4), 535-537.

Yarri, D. (2005). Ethics of animal experimentation: A critical analysis and constructive Christian proposal. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

Experimenting on human has been done several times especially in the US. Philosophers believe that it is not good to carry experiments on human beings. Human beings should be treated as an end not as a means to an end. Kant claimed to have a solid reasoning behind it. Most examples which are of interest in this class involve experiments where the subjects, contra Kant, were used simply as a means to a scientific end. It is forbidden to experiment on moral subjects, but if there are reasons to disqualify a group from the sphere of moral consideration, then the barrier to experimentation may also be withdrawn.

Some experiments have been carried out on humans who include the use of the radioactive substances. There is an instance where the radioactive substances were administered to small children to carry out an experiment with an aim of getting systematic data on the effects of ingesting radioactive isotopes. This has been done to get the effect of ingestion of radioactive substance incase the cold war arises.

Importance of animals

The efficacy, or usefulness, of animal experimentation has also been questioned. It is the basis of Peter Singers famous fork. Widening the class of subjects entitled to moral consideration to include all members of the human race and some animals qualify, narrow it sufficiently without including the non-human animals. There is a problem that animals often do not, in a given case, constitute good models for humans. There is a little point in experimenting on them in order to find results which can be applied to the human beings.

Singer argued that animals have been used by human beings in so many ways. Human beings have trapped and killed animals for food and clothing because they have no choice, whereas we are not because we do have a choice. Pure scientific research carried out experiments on animals not for any application but in an aim to find out things about animals such as their physiology, behavior and ecology. Animals like rabbits and rats have been subjected to very painful practices.

On the other hand, industrial research and biomedical research is often painful and most of the test ends up killing the animals. Experiments such as these often incur the wrath of the animal rights movement. For many philosophers, the case for animal experimentation is strongest in the area of biomedical research; particularly if we take a consequentiality stance which has more benefits than the suffering caused.

Koch and TB

Koch carried out a research on TB by taking some test animals such as rabbits, rats and guinea pigs. Koch chose some as controls and injected material from his dishes into various sites on the bodies of the others, and waited. After a couple of weeks all the injected animals began to show the typical symptoms of TB. After the experiment was completed the animals were killed.

Moral justification on experimentation using animals

Philosopher Descartes just like other philosophers, believed that animals do not feel pain and humans would have the right to do whatever they like to animals. This is because they include the moral subjects in virtue of their use of minds, and being able to use language.

Singer argues against those, like Descartes, who propose a criterion like the use of language for moral consideration. His argument in such cases is essentially the same as that which proposed criterion of ruling out some sentient creatures. This clearly does not want to rule out, like members of our own species who lack the proposed ability or property.

Animal testing has been successfully used in medical research for a long time. Despite this, several points have been raised by various activist groups challenging the relevance and efficiency of the practice and, more famously, its ethical background. Despite the concern voiced by its opponents, animal testing remains a viable practice that is both beneficial and important for humans and, to some degree, animals.

The central argument which is used against animal testing is cruelty and inhumanity, with certain groups like PETA going as far as suggesting the violation of animal rights. The testing is said to create unnecessary suffering in subjects, so the question that is often raised is, Do we have the right to use intelligent living beings without their consent? Two weak points can be outlined in this argument.

First, while it is a certainty certain that at least some amount of discomfort and anxiety accompanies the testing procedures, the modern-day testing process is rigorously regulated by the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, as well as a number of state laws and recommendations. The regulations ensure the maximum possible comfort and the least stress or suffering for the subjects, which benefits the reliability of the results and is thus in the interests of the researchers. In other words, any possibility of suffering that is unnecessary is promptly eliminated. Second, the testing continuously produces valuable data that has already helped to overcome many dangerous conditions.

This latter notion is also constantly challenged by testing opponents. One popular argument is that testing can be substituted with other methods of research. This argument is partially correct, as at least some results are equally obtainable through cellular testing in a petri dish. The problem, however, is that such research is already conducted without animal involvement, and the one which requires live subjects deals with enormously complex structures such as nervous or immune systems, which can not be studied in vitro. Computer simulations have been suggested. This, too, can be a viable alternative. Currently, however, the simulation is not precise or reliable enough for such tasks and requires verification, which, ironically, is often performed by comparing results to those of the animal testing. This places computer simulations in the category of perspective alternatives rather than immediate ones. Finally, some of the radical approaches name voluntary human participation as an alternative. This obviously contradicts all of the existing medical ethics and will be enormously complex from the legal perspective to the point where the ethical and legal proceedings may get in the way of scientific effectiveness.

Another argument against animal testing states that the results obtained from animals are not applicable to humans. While certain examples of such mismatch can be found in the history of research, but an even greater list of successful applications can be created, which includes, but is not limited to, the discovery of insulin, the polio vaccine, tuberculosis, childhood leukemia.

Finally, some of the opponents charge humans with egoism, meaning that people exploit animals for their benefit. On the other hand, the treatments of many animal conditions, such as feline leukemia, rabies, and infectious hepatitis, became possible thanks to the tests on animals and even contributed to saving several endangered species, such as koalas suffering from chlamydia epidemic.

To conclude, the current state of medicine both requires and benefits from the use of the testing. Thus, rather than the outright ban, the development of equally reliable alternatives should be the priority of people who want to make a difference.

Is a vegetarian diet ethically preferable? Explain why or why not using ethical theories to support your position

To answer the question whether a vegetarian diet is ethically preferable, one should consider a number of theories. It is vital to point out that different ethical teachings recognize various spheres of peoples lives. For instance, utilitarianism is more concerned with consequences than with actions that lead to them. Thus, one can argue that eating animals is justifiable as the process of meat production is easy to maintain.

Currently, it allows people to have jobs and easily accessible products. However, one can look at this issue from another point of view. The ethical preference of a vegetarian diet may be proved with this theory if one considers the consequences of every person choosing to be vegetarian. As Fieser (2017) writes, the philosophy of utilitarianism is concerned with the moral righteousness of a situation for every person.

Thus, if the majority of people switch to a vegetarian diet, the ethical considerations will change as well. People will have jobs in other sectors as meat production will decrease. The availability of different products will rise as well. Interestingly, this theory is hard to implement in a discussion about animal pain.

Other theories, however, can be used to support this argument. For example, virtue ethics imply that a person should foster positive qualities to become a better person. One can argue that compassion and love for other creatures can become a valuable part of ones character and moral growth. Thus, a vegetarian diet appears to be more ethical according to this theory. The notion of doing no harm to others may or may not include animals in the meaning. Therefore, some aspects of various duty theories can support the case for a vegetarian diet as well.

Using ethical theory, explain why you feel the use of animal testing for cosmetics is ethical or not. Also using ethical theory, explain the reasoning for the opposing position and why it is incorrect

Animal testing is a topic that raises many debates. Ethical considerations of this issue involve a number of factors. First of all, during the trials restrained animals feel pain, which concerns the opponents of testing the most. Moreover, the tests are usually rather long or reoccurring, which exposes animals to constant abuse. However, these experiments are performed to produce cosmetics that are safe for people.

This problem divides people according to their priorities. In my opinion, animal testing is highly unethical for many reasons. First of all, the virtue theory discourages people from acquiring bad characteristics, including insensibility (Fieser, 2017). The cruelty of animal testing does not positively influence people, as it does not raise ones compassion and charity. Following that logic, causing pain does not make people better, which contributes to their personality and affects their decisions. Moreover, various duty theories can also support this argument. People can extend their duty not to harm others to animals as they feel pain in the same way. Therefore, ones duty of nonmaleficence is essential here.

Other philosophies may argue that the use of animals is beneficial to humans. Utilitarianism and different consequentialist theories can state that the product made with animal testing is safe for people, and it is the primary outcome that everyone should be concerned with in the end. However, the process of animal testing can reveal some weak points of this argument. According to Doke and Dhawale (2015), this type of testing has some limitations that can overweight its advantages.

For example, the tediousness and cost of such trials make it unreliable and hard to use as well. Moreover, the scientific progress presents various alternatives to this type of testing. Thus, one can see that animal testing is no longer advantageous enough for people to dismiss the cruelty of its operations.

References

Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229.

Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics.

Experiments on animals are not a valid method either for investigating the various causes of human diseases or for developing a treatment for them. Faked injuries are inflicted on animals in order to create so-called models that are used to simulate human conditions. With the exception of a number of symptoms, such models hardly bear any resemblance to human diseases. In an animal experiment, factors including the environment, nutrition, smoking, social and psychological aspects, and especially their interactions, cannot be replicated. Contrary to its countless promises, using animal testing, and despite millions of sacrifices and huge economic investments, the medical research system has failed to create significant advances in the fight against major modern diseases (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, allergies, AIDS, etc.).

The results of experiments on animals cannot be reliably transferred to humans. Experiments on animals cannot lead to a reliable conclusion about whether and to what extent animals and humans will react in this way. In all cases, the same test must be replicated in humans with unknown risks and unpredictable consequences. The result of this anti-scientific extrapolation from laboratory animals to humans is that drugs are being taken off the market because of unforeseen dangers or even fatal side effects in humans  effects that have not been seen in animals.

Research into the true causes of human disease is more rewarding and promising and even more beneficial than an increasing number of experiments on defenseless animals. Numerous studies of clinical patients and healthy people have shown the influence of lifestyle on the origin and course of various diseases. It has been clearly demonstrated that the conditions of our civilization are caused mainly by smoking, alcohol abuse, fatty and meat-rich foods, stress, insufficient physical activity and other reasons. To investigate such important factors, no animal must suffer or die.

Abstract

All animals depend on their taste or smell senses, as functionality for locating and choosing food  whether the foods are animal, plant or other compounds. This function is made possible by chemoreceptors, which are located at the taste buds of the tongue, especially, for humans. Inquiries into the functionality of these taste senses make use of insects, as they are easy to control and manipulate. They are also used, because; their sensory-reaction models are relatively simple, as compared to those of other animals. Insects are further, highly, sensitive as they are able to detect the tastes of food substances by walking over them.

This functionality is made possible by the hollow furs located at the proboscis, which have detector neurons, which help the insects distinguish between the tastes of sugar, salt, and water. During this inquiry, the researchers tested the capability of the blowfly Sarcophaga bullata, in perceiving the tastes of different sugar substitutes, sugars and saccharin. The major difference between the taste abilities of the blowfly Sarcophaga bullata and those of other animals, like humans, is that it can detect the sodium salt in saccharic acid, though this sugar may feel 300-500 times sweeter than sucrose. Previous studies have shown that these insects have five functional cells, which aid in the detection of sugar, salt, water, and oil. Through this identification of the different substances, they determine whether to reject or accept the food compounds.

The hypothesis of the study was that taste perception and detection of different sugars by these insects was similar to that of humans. The rationale of the study revolves around the significance of the extensive comprehension to be gained, on the behavioral patterns regarding the choice of foods, as a way of offering information to guide the control of insects and pests. The materials to be used for the study include the insects (subjects), posickle sticks, sticky wax, distilled water, the sugar compounds for the study, and open containers. The study will involve the sticking of the flies to the posickle sticks  through pressing their wings against the surface of the sticks. The second stage will involve exposing the flies to the different sugar compounds, where feeding will be signified by the lowering of proboscis.

Introduction

All animals depend on their taste or smell senses, towards locating and choosing suitable food  whether other animals, like insects or plant materials, for sustained survival. This function is played through the aid of Chemoreceptors, which are located at the taste buds of the tongues, especially for humans (Campbell 2008), for instance, when tasting food compounds, towards deciding whether it is eatable and fit for consumption.

In this line, some food compounds may be classified as  those supposed to go through refining, which may take the form of cooking. Inquiries into sensory functioning, often, make use of bugs and insects as the experimentation subjects. This is the case, because; such insect subjects can be controlled and manipulated easily as well as that their sensory-reaction structures are moderately simple (Campbell 2008; Dethier 1963).

For instance, these creatures are capable of tasting food substances through walking over it (Dethier 1963). This functionality is made possible by the hollow furs located at the proboscis. The tarsi areas also enclose detector neurons, which are capable of distinguishing the tastes of sugars, salts and waters. Further, these flies can perceive the difference between different forms and types of sugars (Dethier 1976). These characteristic functions allow such animals; to locate and make choice of the nutrition they require (Campbell and Reece 2008).

Discussion

During this study, the researchers tested the capability of the blowfly Sarcophaga bullata, in perceiving the tastes of various sugar substitute, sugars and saccharin. Based on the fact that sucrose, which is very sweet to the human tongue  the researchers supposed, that these flies would taste lesser sucrose concentrations, than they would perceive glucose and maltose, which are less tasty sugars to the human tongue. Also, due to the sweet nature of saccharin, which is highly sweet tasting to the human tongue, the researchers expected that the insects would react in a positive manner and consume it as well.

From scientific literatures like (Dethier1963; Robertson and Wanner 2006), it was argued that insects can detect the sodium salt in saccharic acid, even though it is approximately 300  500 times sweeter than sucrose, when perceived by the human tongue. The study used the technique of using different compounds, to comprehend the taste abilities and characteristics of these insects. The model used alcohol, sugar, water, oil and salt  which were to be classified as acceptable or not, after it was tested by the insects. From the findings, it was concluded that the tarsi membrane acted as the functional receptor, as its depolarization was useful in propagating the stimulus of the insect.

The study, also, showed that there are five functional cells, in addition to the mechanoreceptor  which detect the compounds: sugar, alcohol, salt, water and oil  to determine its rejection or acceptance as a food component. From the five varied cells, the stimulation of sugar and water cells induced eating, while the detection of oil, salt or alcohol receptors restrain feeding (Dethier 1963).

From previous studies in the area, for example (Ozaki and Tominaga 1999), the touch-chemoreceptor sensilla located at the labellum of the blowfly takes the shape of furs, which house five sense-detection neurons. These include a single mechanoreceptor center and four touch-chemoreceptor neurons. Of the four receptor neurons, three are noted as the water, sugar and salt receptor centers  based on the adequate stimuli. The fourth receptor neuron is simply referred as the fifth receptor cell, as it plays the function of receptivity to fatty acids (Dethier and Hanson 1968). The impulses registered at the salt receptor center as well as that at the fifth cell center are evoked by ion reactions, namely Cs⁺or Rb⁺ (Gillary1966).

As a result, the fifth cell is also referred as the second salt cell, which makes the insect vey sensitive to salts, for example those contained in sugars like the sodium salt in saccharic acid, which is noted as being 300  500 times sweeter than sucrose, when tasted by the human tongue. Further, the fifth cell of this fly is speculated as having another functional characteristic, that it is responsible for the detection and response-triggering, after it detects some vapors, which is believed to induce vigorous impulses at the cell (Dethier 1972).

The hypothesis of the study was that taste perception and detection of different sugars by these insects were similar to that of humans and that the insects have similar abilities for taste perception, as humans. The rationale of the study was that understanding the taste perception abilities of insects would be helpful in creating more understanding, on how insects could be controlled, using the tastes that they prefer (William, Goldstein, Von and Bernard 1971, p 370-371).

From the findings of this study, more understanding on the feeding patterns and behaviors of insects will be comprehended, which may be useful in inhibiting their harmful behaviors, as well as capitalize on their helpful ones. Further, the comprehension of the feeding patterns, sugar perceptions and taste preferences of these insects would be helpful in guiding breakthroughs in pest control, especially, selective pest control, where some insects are targeted while others are not (Campbell and Reece 2008). From this study, the blowfly study will offer information on correlative studies, with reference to gustatory reaction and the chemical structure of flies.

From the study, the inferences collected will aid, towards substantiating the conclusion that sugar complexes interacting with a putative glucose center  should take the pyranose model  where the structure of the C-4 and C-3 hydroxyl models influence the responsiveness. The study will also help shed more light on the speculation, based on behavioral reactions, that there is only a single variety of sweet-taste receptor cell center, though it may possess numerous receptor sites (William, Goldstein, Von and Bernard 1971, p 370-371).

Methods

The materials to be used for the study include the flies, which were collected three days before, placed under controlled feeding  then starved for 5 hours, prior to the administration of the experiment. The second material will be the posickle sticks, which are to be used for the sticking of the flies, prior to the study. The third material to be used during the experiment is sticky wax, which is to be applied onto the surface of the posickle sticks, so that they can allow for the sticking of the insects  onto the surface of the posickle sticks (Kwon, Dahanukar, Weiss and Carlson 2007).

The fourth material is distilled water, which will be used for the rinsing of the insects  during transition of administration from one sugar/ food compound to the next. The water will also be administered to the insects, prior to the exposure to the next study compound, as this will help clear the tastes registered from the previous study compound. Other materials include the open containers, inside which the different sugar compounds are to be poured  so as to administer the exposure in an easier manner. The sugar/ food compounds to be used during the study include diluted sucrose, glucose, and maltose  which are to be used during the different sugar compound exposure steps (Kwon, Dahanukar, Weiss and Carlson 2007).

The study will involve the sticking of flies to posickle sticks, which is affected by pressing their wings against a sticky wax applied at the surface of the sticks. The second step is the making of a dilution compound of sucrose, glucose and maltose in single-half log molar levels, from the different 1M solutions of the sugars availed for the study. The sensory of the flies is determined through offering each fly the opportunity to consume each of the sugar compounds. The exposure to the sugars starts from the lowest concentration to the highest levels. After exposing the fly to one sugar compound, it is rinsed  through swishing their feet into a container with distilled water.

During the exposure, a positive response is registered, when a fly lowers its proboscis. Towards ensuring that the positive responses were registered when exposed to sugars and not the water compound, the insects were allowed to drink the distilled water, prior to exposure at the next test compound. While placing the flies at the different sugar compounds, the flies are expected to lower their proboscis  as a signal of wanting to feed on the compound (Nelson, Hoon, Chandrashekar, Zhang, Ryba and Zuker 2001).

The choice of the testing technique was based on the scientific understanding that sugars are crucial dietary compounds for a wide range of insects, including the blowfly Sarcophaga. Further, the functionality of trehalose receptor traits is characteristic with the molecular genetic makeup of insects, with regard to the perception of sugars among these flies. Further, the taste receptors of the flies used for the study are similar to Co₂ receptors and insect olfactory, though dissimilar to those of mammals, which use T1R₂/T1R₃for the detection of all sugar compounds.

The highly sensitive nature of the insects used for the study was also based on the scientific characteristics  that they use more than a single set of; discrete combinations of GRs towards the detection of the different sugar compounds (Robertson and Wanner 2006).

Conclusion

The appropriate nature of the study technique may also be proved on the basis of the facts that the responses of the sugar receptors located at the tarsal D furs of the blowfly  phormia regina, have been evaluated electrophysiologically. The capability of these receptor centers, in coding sugar/ food information  on sucrose concentration has been investigated and proven the methods and the concepts of information theory (Nelson, Hoon, Chandrashekar, Zhang, Ryba and Zuker 2001).

From such studies, it has been proven that the stimulus-reaction function is linearly related to the logarithm of the concentration of sucrose compounds range between 0.01 and 1.0 M. From the account of the proven nature of the interrelation between the receptor abilities of blowfly Sarcophaga, this mode of study is highly effective, as it offers exactitude information on the sugar-concentration and compound choices of the insects (Vaillant and Derridj 1992, p. 773 -775).

References

Campbell, N & Reece, J 2008, Biology, Pearson Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco.

Dethier, V 1963, The Physiology of Insect Senses, Methuen & Co., London.

Dethier, V 1976, The Hungry Fly, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Dethier, V1972, Sensitivity of the contactchemoreceptors of the blowfly to vapors, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, vol. 69 no. 2, pp. 2189 2192.

Dethier, V and Hanson, F 1968, Electrophysiological responses of the blowfly to sodium salts and fatty acids, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, vol. 60 no. 3, pp. 1269 1303.

Gillary, H 1966, Stimulation of the salt receptor of the blowfly, J. Gen. Physiol., vol. 50 no. 5, pp. 359 368.

Kwon, J, Dahanukar, A, Weiss, L and Carlson, J 2007, The molecular basis of CO2 reception in Drosophila, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, vol. 104 no. 7, pp. 35743578.

Nelson, G, Hoon, M, Chandrashekar, J, Zhang, Y, Ryba, N & Zuker, C 2001, Mammalian sweet taste receptors, Cell, vol.106 no. 3, pp. 381390.

Ozaki, M and Tominaga, Y 1999, Chemoreceptors, Springer-Verlag, Tokyo.

Robertson, H and Wanner, K 2006, The chemoreceptor superfamily in the honey bee, Apis mellifera: expansion of the odorant, but not gustatory, receptor family, Genome Res, vol. 16 no. 7, pp. 13951403.

Vaillant, J and Derridj, S 1992, Statistical analysis of insect preference in two-choice experiments, Journal of Insect Behavior, Vol. 5 no. 6, pp. 773-775.

William, J, Goldstein, R, Von, B & Bernard, A 1971, Sugar receptor specificity in the fleshfly sarcophaga Bullata, Brain Research, vol. 35 no. 4, pp. 370-371.

Introduction

Animal cruelty has always been a critical issue, not only in science, where animals are experimented on but also in everyday life. Many people do not even think about the torture inflicted on animals and how painful it may be. This can be for different purposes, such as scientific, as mentioned earlier, or simply for entertainment, although it is difficult to find anything funny about animal abuse. Therefore this topic needs to be investigated and specific arguments made as to why living beings should not be used for malicious purposes, but rather the opposite. They should be treated with kindness and understanding. To this end, this paper has been written and will outline the leading causes of cruelty to animals, their consequences, how to deal with the problem, and how important it is to look after pets.

Motivation for Animal Cruelty

A principal reason for animal cruelty is the owners cruelty towards others. Studies have shown that people who are cruel to their friends, family, or strangers are more likely to project their behavior onto an animal (Johnson 405). Very often, the cause is self-assertion at the expense of others, a demonstration of power and authority. Unfortunately, these cases are not isolated, and many of those who enjoy demonstrating their qualities through violence are criminals. There have also been cases where animal abuse has been used as an excuse to take revenge on a partner or as a means of manipulation in a relationship. There is no excuse for this method either, and hiding behind the back of a pet for your benefit is simply disgusting. Unfortunately, todays children have completely forgotten how to live without smart gadgets. For them everything around them seems unreal, as if they are in a virtual world even in real life, where there are no consequences from wrong decisions made. However, it should still be understood that this is not a game, but life. In such cases, parents prefer to do nothing, because the childs feelings are stronger and they should not be prevented from playing with animals, even if they might cripple them (Johnson 404). For the child, all this is no more than a toy, because he or she doesnt understand what the problem is, but parents should have an understanding of reality, after all. Unfortunately, what should be is not what it is. This point will also be related to children, as they are the ones who pose the greatest threat to animals, as they are the most irresponsible people. It is no secret that children adopt their parents behavior and repeat it. There are situations where a domestic dispute between family members escalates into physical harm. In the eyes of the child, this looks like a regular thing, and they want to repeat it on someone weaker, most often an animal (Harman 34). We need to be able to shield the child from the negative example and try to focus more on positive thinking.

Corporal Punishment

A very controversial topic is the corporal punishment of a child for being cruel to animals. It would seem to make sense because the child can feel the pain the pet has suffered at his hands. However, this approach is entirely wrong, not only does it make no sense to physically punish children, but the child will also want to take revenge on the animal for what was done to them. This will only result in more mutilation, and the educational process will be of no use at all. One should realize that children are just copying the behavior of their parents or learning from other people. We need to find the root of the problem and eliminate it rather than deal with the consequences every time.

Main Solution

The best way to protect animals from humans should be their uniqueness. It is meant that everyone can now afford to get a pet, but they must feel responsible for what they do. It seems that the ideal solution would be the need for proof that a person can take a pet with them. The life of any creature is essential and priceless, so we need to appreciate what we get and be able to teach others responsibility for their actions. This would be a convenient step towards eliminating the problem of animal cruelty and improving the quality of animals lives.

Conclusion

To summarise the above problem, it can be said that solving it requires a rather drastic approach. As has been said, many people do not appreciate animals and treat them in a way that is not appropriate. Of course, it isnt easy to judge children and their attitudes, as they are not yet formed as individuals and adopt everything from the outside world. It must also be understood that animals are subjected to tests of various medications that can be detrimental to their health or even their lives. Unfortunately, pets are valued far less than human life, even though they are both living beings. I am sure that in the future when there are fewer animals, people will value them more, but it is better to start respecting the life of any living creature now.

References

Harman, Alice. Animal Cruelty. Franklin Watts, 2020.

Johnson, Scott A. Animal Cruelty, Pet Abuse & Violence: The Missed Dangerous Connection. Foresic Research & Criminology International Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, 2018, Web.

Is Animal Testing Ethical: Essay Introduction

Inflicting pain upon others has become a source of deriving pleasure for many people; animals have their feelings, and they too feel the pain as the human beings do, but this has been consistently ignored by the human beings and especially the scientists who conduct numerous researches on weak and helpless animals.

There is an evident lack of concern in the society towards one another, let alone the case of animals; one mans suffering is another mans pleasure, and this becomes even more barbaric in the case of animals. The human beings have taken it for granted that animals dont have a life, and they can be used any which way, but this perception is very wrong and must be changed before its too late.

We fail to realize that the pain inflicted on animals will return a full circle to haunt us, and no matter how significant discovery we make by inflicting pain on the animals, it will only be futile.

The issue of animals being used for research has dominated the thoughts of many people, some feel animals can be used for experimentation while others strongly condemn this, this paper will throw light upon whether animal experimentation is good or bad, every aspect of this saga will be discussed in this paper and a conclusion at the end will be arrived at which will sum up the discussion.

All human beings are capable of logical thinking and deciding whether their actions are right or not? Off late, there have been numerous issues when the logical thinking of human beings has come under the scanner. Ethical problems are issues that question whether the treatment given to animals is humane or not? Ethics are essential when it comes to the treatment of animals or for that matter, anything else.

There have been numerous researches conducted on animals, and the animal rights activists have protested a lot against the same. The question is whether we are treating the animals the way they deserve to be treated?

Different people will have a different say on this, but it is mostly concluded that we are using the animals for various purposes other than what they are supposed to be used for. This paper will explore the issue of experimentation on animals, and a conclusion will be arrived at in the concluding part of the article.

Animal Testing Ethical Essay: Use of Animal Fur

Using animals for different purposes has become more of a trend these days; celebrities often wear animal fur coats, jackets, etc. and they succeed in catching the attention of the people. All species on this planet has certain fundamental rights, and every other species must respect those rights, human beings have entirely forgotten the fact that animals have certain fundamental rights which must not be violated.

Human beings speak of human rights and expect fellow human beings to follow the same, but this is a distant reality, and it will only come true if human beings start respecting the other species. Animals are being exploited day in, and day out, fur has become the latest fashion statement, and the use of hair must be strictly forbidden. Every piece of fur is the result of horrific cruelty.

Animals trapped for their fur can suffer for hours or days in body-gripping traps, chewing through their own feet in a desperate attempt to escape. More than four million wild animals are trapped and killed each year in the United States by commercial and recreational trappers alone. (The Cruelty of Fur Trim, 22 April 2009)

Each year, in China, millions of dogs and cats are cruelly killed by bludgeoning, hanging and slow strangulation with wire nooses and their fur turned into trim and trinkets. Chinese fur is often deliberately mislabeled so that unsuspecting customers will buy it around the globe. (Chinas Gold Medal for Cruelty, 22 April 2009). There must be strict restrictions on the same.

The animal rights activists must ensure that no country violates animal rights; animals also feel the same pain as human beings do; human beings should understand this. There must be strict rules, and the violators must be strictly prosecuted to stop this inhumane treatment of animals. The nest part of the paper will focus on the research done on animals and issues related to the same.

Animal Testing Ethical Essay: Research vs Using for Food

Research on animals is hugely different from using them for food; the only similarity between the two is that both these things are highly unethical and should not be carried out. Animals should be treated the way human beings treat each other.

The question is, do we conduct experiments on each other? Do we kill each other for the sale of food? The obvious answer is no, we dont do it because we consider it unethical, but the same does not apply when it comes to treating animals. Double standards are undoubtedly evident here; we treat animals with far less care than we treat the other fellow human beings; this goes to show that we dont consider the animals important.

An important thing is given attention and treated with so much more care than the animals are treated these days. Cloning is fast picking up when it comes to the preservation of the endangered animals.

Cloning members of an endangered species, for example, is generally regarded as a positive application of the technology, whereas attempting to clone an extinct woolly mammoth from preserved tissue elicits more negative responses, including that this interferes with nature. (The Cloning Ban, 22 April 2009).

It is perfect for cloning an endangered species because the same ensures that the endangered species live on for a considerable amount of time; on the contrary, the process of cloning has also been condemned for interfering with nature.

Every coin is two-sided, and research and experimentation are also two-sided. It has its negatives and positives, but on the whole, if this case is considered, it is found that testing on animals is never proper because it is against the ethics, and the term ethics has been brought into use by human beings. It is the human beings that have started violating these ethics.

The Canadian Council on Animal Care Guidelines for the Care and Use of Experimental Animals offer standards to be used by Investigators, Animal Care Staff, and Animal Care Committees to judge the level of pain and stress and the degree of invasiveness experienced by an animal during the course of scientific experimentation, testing or teaching. (Ethical Considerations, 22 April 2009).

Animals are put under intense pain during the various experiments conducted on them. This is highly unethical, and to conclude, it is very fair to say that experiments should never be conducted on animals. Neither the animals should be used for meat and for other unethical reasons.

Animal Testing Ethical Essay: Inflicting Pain on the Animals

Animal testing involves inflicting pain on poor animals, and most of the animals die because of the same, and this is highly unethical. This has been going on for quite some time now, and this should not be continued any longer. Inflicting pain on ants is considered unethical in so many religions, and animal experimentation involves inflicting a lot of pain on the animals, this is very difficult to stop, but it must be stopped.

Experimentation reduces the quality of life of animals, and this is another highly unethical issue. Who has given us the authority to make someone elses life a living hell? This question must be asked to all those people who indulge in this unethical practice.

If it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, then experimenting on animals produces serious moral problems. Animal experimenters are very aware of this ethical problem and acknowledge that experiments should be made as humane as possible. (Religion and Ethics, 22 April 2009)

There can be several other ways that can be invented to reduce the suffering of animals. Animal testing must be banned, and some other alternative method should be used. When scientists can use animals for testing, they are more than capable of finding alternate methods. This will transform the lives of all the animals for better, and this will also minimize their suffering.

There are several issues that should be addressed like their habitats, their conservation, etc.; instead of taking care of these issues, we have started killing them for our own benefit. This practice should be brought to an immediate end, and the people who still continue this should be prosecuted. The government must interfere in this issue and make strict laws that will conserve the quality of life that the animals live.

There is another problem that is affecting the lives of several animals, the scientists never share the information with other scientists after conducting research on animals, this is done in order to get credit for their experiment, if they start sharing their research findings with other scientists, they will actually end up killing much fewer animals then they actually do. Once the research is conducted, the result must be shared with all the scientists across the globe in order to minimize the damage done to the lives of several animals.

Is Animal Testing Moral: Essay Conclusion

The paper has given enough evidence that suggests that animal experimentation is unethical, and we must not indulge in anything that is not ethical. Animal experimentation inflicts pain on animals, and this is just not right, it is high time to put an end to all this. Animal experimentation must be banned in order to restore law and order in society.

This should come to an immediate end before these problems become a problem of much greater magnitude. The governments of several countries must initiate action and put an end to this long-standing problem. Strict laws must be made in order to ensure that animal experimentation is no longer carried out. Once this happens, the world would surely become a much ethical place to live in.

References

Chinas gold medal for cruelty. In Animal Rights Articles.

Ethical Considerations. In Moral, Legal and Ethical Issues.

Religion and Ethics. In BBC World. Web.

The Cloning Ban. In Cloning Ethical Issues.

The Cruelty of Fur Trim. In Fur Trim Kills More Animals.

The debate over the use of animals for medical research is still heated and seems to be everlasting. Some suggest that this practice is morally wrong, while others oppose them, arguing there is no better option. Testing on animals in the lab provides researchers with valuable knowledge regarding a particular disease, how it could be treated, and using which medicines. Indeed, such studies often cause harm or death to animals involved. However, it is more unethical and impractical to test the new treatment on fellow human beings. To my mind, comprehensive regulations should be in place to limit studies on animals and minimize the harm they may experience.

Opponents of animal experimentation claim that it can be substituted with more human and advanced options. Researches may use cell cultures grown in the lab, 3D structures of human organs, donated human tissues, and computer models. For instance, brutal rabbit irritation tests can be replaced by eye and skin models reconstructed from developed human tissues. Nevertheless, such options require more investment and advanced technical solutions. According to ZwoliDska (2017), the use of animals in labs contributed to biomedical and scientific progress and is expected to continue do so. For instance, animal researchers discovered insulin therapy by removing the pancreas from dogs to observe its actual role in regulating blood sugar and digestion (Felman, 2018). Although animal experiments are still of high importance, governments and researchers must ensure that the well-being of laboratory animals is continuously improving.

Thus, researchers must share the publics concern and follow particular principles such as the three Rs. The first is Replace, meaning that scientists should use alternative methods to study the issue or test treatment when it is possible. The following principle is Reduce: to decrease the number of animals involved by improving experimental techniques and fostering cooperation between independent researchers (Curzer et al., 2016). The last one is Refine about improving living conditions and caring for animals by applying less invasive experimental methods. It is essential to find a temporal compromise between the ethical side of the issue and its practical benefits applying similar limitations and principles.

References

Curzer, H. J., Perry, G., Wallace, M. C., & Perry, D. (2016). The three Rs of animal research: what they mean for the institutional animal care and use committee and why. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 549-565. Web.

Felman, A. (2018). Who discovered insulin?. Medical News Today. Web.

ZwoliDska, J. (2017). The use of animals in medical research-A historical perspective. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 45(1), 37-47. Web.