Category: Animal Abuse

Medical researchers have been using animals as test subjects for potential human treatments for centuries. Initially, the main reasons for that included the lack of resources to study the drugs or therapy methods in alternative ways and an overall unemotional attitude toward any creatures other than people. However, today those arguments are outdated and ought to be reconsidered as progress allowed for the new and more effective methods to be practiced. Animal testing is often an unnecessary and ineffective strategy for human drug approval which should eventually be eliminated.

Animals, in many cases, do not suffer from the same diseases as humans, so scientists artificially induce the necessary conditions in test subjects to study new drugs or therapy methods. For example, these methods are used when researching dangerous heart conditions, various types of cancer, HIV, and Parkinsons disease. Since they are not typical or natural in tested animals, the results will be affected by subjects biological abilities to adapt to the newly induced dangers, which could lead to a somewhat unpredictable reaction based on genetic response and mutations. Thus, even successfully tested treatment methods and drugs may have negative or no effect when applied to humans.

Animal organisms differ from people significantly, so studying them for medical purposes is a relatively wasteful strategy. Medical researchers spend years sacrificing millions of animals to potentially recommend only a few drugs for human treatment. Besides, medicines and strategies that worked on rats or monkeys may be ineffective or even dangerous for humans, so even studies with a positive outcome could be a waste of resources.

Computer technology, drug test simulations, and artificial neural networks could be effective alternatives to using animals. Modern calculating machines can analyze billions of scenarios based on an enormous amount of data. While the chance of errors or miscalculations cannot be avoided, using computers helps shorten the time usually needed to notice and record the biological reactions to experimental treatment in a laboratory. Neural networks also adjust their results based on the new data often without the need to start the process from the beginning. Finally, computers do not need to rest, unlike people, so they can perform calculations non-stop for long periods.

Using animals to test potential human treatments is a cruel strategy that could have a negative psychological effect on researchers, doctors, and patients. Modern people are more conscious of the environment and other living creatures than their ancestors. Many humans stop eating meat, visiting zoos, or wearing natural fur because they do not want to contribute to the suffering of the animals if it could be avoided. Knowing that medical drugs have caused pain to other living creatures could make people feel uncomfortable or depressed, affecting the treatment process in humans negatively. In some cases, knowing that a particular company had used animals as test subjects may be the reason for a patient to avoid the proposed strategy or medicine brand.

Using animals to test drugs and treatment methods for humans is outdated. Modern alternatives involve computer simulations and artificial neural networks that can analyze millions of scenarios over a short period. Such procedures could save creatures lives and also decrease the time needed to conclude specific treatments. Animal testing is an outdated, ineffective, and cruel practice that should be eliminated in future medical experiments.

Introduction

Experiments on animals are perhaps one of the most controversial issues of modern science. Proponents of animal testing point to the enormous progress in medicine that has become possible thanks to such practices. Opponents consider them cruel and senseless since the results of animal observations are not always applicable to humans. Unfortunately, at the moment, the use of animals in science and medicine cannot be excluded entirely. However, it is possible to conduct preliminary experiments using mathematical distribution models and reduce the number of animals in the experiment.

Animal experiments are often called vivisection, this term literally means cutting living beings. It historically refers only to experiments involving the dissection of living animals. However, much indicates that opponents of animal experiments commonly use a broader definition. It is also worth noting that scientists themselves use the term animal experiments. The topic of this essay is related to the study of the use of animals for laboratory research, mainly for medication development and disease analysis. The importance of writing this paper lies in the fact that the ethical question regarding laboratory animals has been open for more than a century. Therefore, a problem requires more study and analysis to formulate a final answer.

Standardization of Research

Due to the enormous variety of experimental techniques, it is possible to reduce the number of animals in laboratories mainly through standardization of research and mandatory thorough literature analysis. This will help to avoid repeating the experiments already conducted (Nunamaker 2031). However, other scientists may note that alternatives to using animals exist; new ones are actively developed, but it is impossible to replace everything (Rai and Kuldeep 898). On the other hand, it is possible to conduct preliminary experiments using mathematical models and reduce the number of animals in the experiment.

Experiments on Low-Organized Species

If possible, scientists need to conduct experiments on low-organized species because their nervous system is simpler. Thus, they suffer less. For example, it is worth noting that it is more developed in mice than in fish. If it were possible to conduct experiments on the effects of toxic substances only on bacteria, it would be better (Ghidan 20). However, the more complex the system, the more factors will influence the result. For example, for bacteria, a specific dose of the substance will be toxic, but it will not affect mice in any way, and vice versa (Codecasa, Elisa, et al. 698). In this case, the research method should be applied to certain parts of the body. This will help avoid the threat of death of the animal and reduce the harm from the experiments effects.

Development of Modern Technologies

Nowadays, there are new developments, for example, synthetic cornea; they allow scientists to avoid using animals in experiments. The more modern the technology, the more accurate and closer to reality the result will be (Desmoulin-Canselier and Baptiste). However, such solutions are expensive because this is not the most common solution but patented by some developers (Cheluvappa, Rajkumar et al.). Not all companies can afford it and resort to the old methods. In this case, it is necessary to expand the field of development of such artificial body parts. It is possible to introduce alternatives in toxicological studies, where the most harmful animal experiments are observed.

Conclusion

The primary position is the desire to reduce the use of animals and find alternatives. In addition, humane approaches to their content and use in physiological experiments should be adopted. At each stage of experimental work, it is necessary to give an account of actions, to take care of animals. They do not understand what is happening and must create the most comfortable conditions. However, people cannot stop there, and scientists need to move science and medicine forward. Nevertheless, at the same time, people should remember that scientists work with living organisms that give their lives in the name of science. It is essential to act consciously and humanely, to understand for what purpose people are doing this.

Works Cited

Cheluvappa, Rajkumar, et al. Ethics of animal research in human disease remediation, its institutional teaching; and alternatives to animal experimentation. Pharmacology research and perspectives, vol. 5, no. 4, 2017, e00332.

Codecasa, Elisa, et al. Legal Frameworks and Controls for the Protection of Research Animals: A Focus on the Animal Welfare Body with a French Case Study. Animals: an open access journal from MDPI, vol. 11, no. 3, 2021, pp. 695-700.

Desmoulin-Canselier, Sonia, and Baptiste Moutaud. Animal Models and Animal Experimentation in the Development of Deep Brain Stimulation: From a Specific Controversy to a Multidimensional Debate. Frontiers in neuroanatomy, vol. 13, no. 51, 2019.

Ghidan, Alaa Yousef. Novel Experimental Work on Animals: Law and Ethics Perspective. Journal of Applied and Advanced Research, vol. 5, 2020, pp. 1921.

Nunamaker, Elizabeth. Developing Recommendations for Cumulative Endpoints and Lifetime Use for Research Animals. Animals, vol. 11, no. 7, 2021, p. 2031.

Rai, Jagdish, and Kuldeep Kaushik. Reduction of Animal Sacrifice in Biomedical Science & Research through Alternative Design of Animal Experiments. Saudi pharmaceutical journal: SPJ: the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, vol. 26, no. 6, 2018, pp. 896-902.

Introduction

Business ethics has emerged as a critical field in different parts of the world. The term business ethics refers to various principles of morality used to guide different business issues (Sethi, 2012, p. 19). Unethical behaviors can have negative impacts on the performance of every business organization. The notion of compliance has emerged to redefine the role of ethics in business practice (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).

Business organizations should follow the law and embrace the best ethical practices. However, several activities undertaken by business organizations tend to result in ethical dilemmas. This essay gives a detailed analysis of the ethical issues arising from Nestles animal testing practices.

Company Background

Nestle is one of the leading producers of cereals, sweets, chocolates, baby formulas, and drinks (Nestle Global, 2016). This Swiss multinational firm has its headquarters in Vevey, Switzerland (Nestle Global, 2016). The company is the leading player in the global food industry in terms of revenues. The company has been focusing on the best approaches to reduce wastes and engage in sustainable business practices. The firm undertakes numerous research and development (R&D) practices to achieve its potentials. However, the company is currently dealing with several protests, boycotts, and controversies.

Evaluating Nestles Mission and Vision

Nestles mission is to be the leading health, nutrition, and wellness company in the world (Nestle Global, 2016). The company focuses on the concept of a good life and food (Ethical Food Choices, 2016). The firm works hard to provide nutritious choices in a wide range of beverages and foods to its consumers (Nestle Global, 2016, para. 3). The companys vision is to become a competitive and healthy firm that delivers improved shareholder value by being the preferred corporate citizen, employer, and supplier of quality consumer products (Nestle Global, 2016, para. 5).

Analysis of the Ethical Problem

In an attempt to achieve its business goals, Nestle has been undertaking numerous strategies, researches, and practices. For instance, R&D has been taken seriously to deliver quality products to every global consumer. The company promotes the best practices in an attempt to become the most admirable corporate citizen and employer (Nestle Global, 2016). With its wide range of products and beverages, Nestle has been attracting more customers from different parts of the globe.

The companys mission and vision are what dictates its business goals. The employees at the company are empowered in an attempt to achieve the targeted goals and support their mission. Innovation is therefore undertaken continuously at the company. This is done by the companys vision. However, the company has gone further to engage in animal testing malpractices. It is agreeable that animal testing can be undertaken to come up with better products and drugs (Barnett, 2013).

However, Nestle has gone further to engage in inappropriate and unethical animal testing practices. Nestle undertakes such practices in an attempt to produce superior products that have the potential to support its mission and vision.

Nestles ultimate goal is to become a leading producer and marketer of quality products to its global consumers. In an attempt to achieve this goal, Nestle has embraced the power of R&D to achieve the best goals. However, the firm has engaged in inappropriate animal testing. Such testing practices are usually embraced to produce better products that can increase the level of competitiveness. However, the strategy has led to a major ethical problem (Barnett, 2013).

This ethical issue has emerged from the fact that animals should be treated with respect and dignity. Every animal being used for scientific research should also be provided with a proper diet and care. Humane handling and housing are also necessary for such animals (Barnett, 2013). Cruelty-Free International (CFI) has been on the frontline to ensure all corporations engage in ethical practices. The agency has continued to address the ethical issues associated with animal testing.

Nestle has therefore been accused of engaging in similar malpractices that leave many animals dead. The company has also been presenting inaccurate reports regarding its treatment of different animals used for scientific researches (Barnett, 2013). As well, the company has been accused of producing unhealthy baby formulas and food products (Macrae & Rowe, 2014). The most outstanding fact is that Nestle has been engaging in unethical business practices in an attempt to maximize its profits and come up with superior products.

Conclusion

Business organizations should be ethical to remain profitable and reputable. As well, corporations engaging in unethical business practices will eventually face the law. Moral principles should, therefore, be used to guide different companies whenever engaging in various business activities (Trevino & Nelson, 2011).

The case of Nestle shows how different companies engage in unethical researches such as animal testing. This malpractice has forced many lobbyists and animal rights activists to sue the company (Sethi, 2012)). That being the case, companies that want to achieve their potentials should always act ethically. They should at the same time focus on their respective missions and visions.

Reference List

Barnett, H. (2013). Revealed: How food giants are cruelly testing  and KILLING  animals for profits. Express. Web.

Ethical Food Choices. (2016). Web.

Macrae, F., & Rowe, N. (2014). Food giants caught in an animal testing scandal. Mail Online. 

Nestle Global. (2016). Web.

Sethi, P. (2012). Multinational Corporations and the Impact of Public Advocacy on Corporate Strategy: Nestle and the Infant Formula Controversy. New York, NY: Springer.

Trevino, L., & Nelson, K. (2011). Managing Business Ethics. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Introduction Milk production is the darkest and most wicked part of farming. The dairy industry totals unethical, systematic cruelty. Cows are continued to be subjected to abuse in the name of increased profits. More than 9 million, cows compose the U.S. dairy herd. Repeated reimpregnation, short calving intervals, overproduction of milk, restrictive housing systems, poor nutrition, and physical disorders impair the welfare of the animals in industrial dairy operations. Once their productivity decreases, the cows are often weak and are processed as ground beef. In their fragile end-of-production state, handling, transport, and slaughter raise additional welfare concerns. Production Cycle Once a calf is born, they are immediately separated from their mothers. The female offspring will be used for milk production and male offspring’s, considered to have no value to a dairy farmer, will be killed for veal. The production cycle of a female cow will start at 25 months, she will be impregnated, give birth, and start to start lactation. Prior to giving birth, there will be a “drying off” period to allow the cows to heal and prepare for birthing. The drying offs period can cause large amounts of milk to be collected, resulting in udder engorgement. Restricting feed and water intake can increase milk production, but this can result in an increase in cortisol levels and can impact the cow’s welfare.

After giving birth the Dairy cows have a short time to recover, they will be re-impregnated in 4 short months to repeat this entire cycle. Reproductive techniques The reproductive techniques used have evolved rapidly. The techniques most commonly used are artificial insemination, many ovulation embryo transfer, and in vitro fertilization, this has become widespread with the dairy farming community. These techniques can be very painful and cause distress to the cows. There are four techniques in collecting semen from breeder bulls. These are aspiration from the vagina of recently bred cows, collection from an artificial vagina, collection by transrectal glandular massage, and electroejaculation. Electro ejaculations are the insertion of a device into the bull’s rectum that delivers an electric shock, this can increase cortisol levels, also named stress, and the bull can experience pain and distress. Housing The housing system for lactating and dry cows is mainly determined by the local climate. In the U.S., many dairy operations confine lactating and dry cows in indoor systems and only 9.9% of operations raising lactating cows on pasture. Cows that are kept in tie-stalls, or stanchions, will be individually tethered by the neck. Those in free stalls or cubicle, are allowed to move in the barn and aren’t retrained. Individual lying places are available and separated for one another by metal bars, most measuring between 2-2.4 m in length and 1-1.2 m in width, and they may not have bedding. Staryards are either located indoors or outdoors and are slightly larger than a cubicle system.

The yards will provide bedding such as straw, but there are no individuals lying places. In the yard, cows are also allowed to walk freely as they are not tethered or constrained. Dry Lots are outdoors and are consisted of unpaved areas confining the cows. Physical problems/effects There are three main physical problems that will occur within the industry. These problems are known as lameness, mastitis, and tail docking. Lameness is one of the most serious issues within the U.S. dairy industry. The prevalence of lameness in cows can be as high as 24.6%. In a survey, it is shown that 20% of deaths or injuries of cows are due to lameness, followed by 16.5% due to mitosis, and 15.2% from calving problems. Lameness results in pain and discomfort, causing cows to develop hypoalgesia, altering their behavior due to the attempt to relieve the pain by changes in body posture, reduced walking activity, and more frequent shifts of their weight from one leg to the other. What causes lameness is hoof lesions, this being associated with concrete flooring. Insufficient physical activity is another cause to lameness when cows have access to exercise and pasture, it will help improve the health of the hoof, but these are not accessible to dairy cows. The most common reported a health-related problem with the dairy industry in the U.S. is clinical mastitis, resulting in 16.5% deaths. Milking machines can cause trauma to teat tissues are predisposing factors to this painful swelling of cows mammary glands. When a teat opens, pathogenic bacteria will cause an infection. Poor cubicle and cow cleanness can increase mastitis, but frequent bedding changes and milking parlor sanitation may reduce the risk. When a cow has their tail docked, two-thirds of the tail is amputated. The tail docking procedure is usually performed without anesthetic and is completed by the application of a tight, rubber ring that restricts blood flow to the distal portion of the tail, which is then removed with a sharp instrument. When cows don’t have a tail, they can suffer from fly bites, and the pain from the remaining stump can become chronic, comparable to phantom pain in humans after limb amputation. 50.5% of U.S. dairy industries will practice tail-docking, approximately 1 in 6 dairy farmers docked the tails of 100% of the herd.

There are some arguments in favor of tail-docking, these include improved udder and milk hygiene as well as cleaner milking parlors, but there are no scientific pieces of evidence that support these claims. There has been a claimed regarding tail docking made by the American Veterinary Medical Association, saying that “routine tail docking provides no benefit to the animal, and that tail docking can lead to distress during fly seasons.” Handling and Transportation When handling and transporting cattle, it can be very stressful for them. Because the transportation process involves mainly rough handling and unfamiliarity, the cattle will start to feel threatened. This can cause stress, bruising, and injuries. Cattle tend to remember and respond to traumatic experiences, injury and sometimes death is a factor because of this. Sadly when being transported different groups of animals are mixed and food, as well as water, aren’t given to the animals, causing threatening behaviors, weight loss, and dehydration. Once the cows finishing traveling to where they will be slaughtered, they are weak, hurt, and diseased. Slaughter Preceding to slaughter, there are five detrimental problems that can occur. The poor condition of arriving animals, stressful handling methods, distractions that hinder movement, improperly trained employees, and poor maintenance of equipment. Before being slaughtered the cow will be stunned, this is to render the animals senses to pain. Stunning consists of a captive bolt pistol or gunshot to the head. After being stunned, the cow should usually bleed to death and a thoracic stick will finish the slaughter.

Animals are a large portion of our food consumption and are used to test medical and cosmetic products before selling them to the public. The question many people are starting to ask themselves is “do animals have rights”? Although animals are used for medical research and food consumption, animals do have rights and these industries should not test their products on these animals because it is ethically wrong and infringes on animals’ rights.

There has been an ongoing battle as to whether we should have animal rights laws. Different people have different opinions on animals’ rights, depending on the type of society they live in. It is found to be very common in the Western Hemisphere to advocate more for animal rights. In surveys conducted by the General Social Survey in 1993, 1994, and 2008, they surveyed 1,500 people. They asked about race, religion, gender, political affiliation, and income. The results of the GSS state, “In other words, people who supported an expansive conception of human rights and welfare were also more likely to support animal rights,” (Par,Valentino 2). As our generation gets older we start to form our own political views and it shows through what we advocate for. Our generation tends to focus more towards environmental issues in our society. Part of these environmental issues includes animal rights laws. According to the Texas Society for Biomedical Research, we are violating animal rights with: “Use of animals and animal products for human or animal dietary consumption (meat and dairy), confinement livestock and poultry production, Hunting, trapping, and fishing, fur-farming, use of animals in cosmetic and product-safety testing, the practice of owning pets, use of animals and animal products in clothing and domestic products (wool, fur, leather, silk), use of animals for any medical or veterinary research or procedure, zoos, circuses, rodeos, horse shows, and dog-shows, all performing animals, guide dogs for the blind, police dogs and search and rescue dogs,” (Texas Society for Biomedical Research 3). The author provided a list of ways in which we are exploiting animals for our own gain and violating their rights in the process. While there are some things on this list we cannot ban, for example, search and rescue dogs, others we could pass laws in order to give certain animals more rights such as animals used in performances.

The meat industry and dairy industries account for some of the most controversial animal abuse cases in modern media. The meat and dairy industries are two of the biggest food producers in our country. We use meat and dairy almost everyday of our lives. In order for companies to produce enough meat and dairy to keep up with our daily use, it requires huge farms and thousands of animals. Many companies take good care of the animals at their farms such as MOOville Creamery and . Some companies are not as considerate as to how they care for their animals. In 2008, PETA attached a camera to an undercover activist who worked as an employee for Mowmar Farms. The videos showed extreme cases of animal abuse. According to the author of the article, “Animals Suffer Needlessly for Food Production”, Ted Genoways claims, ”… a worker demonstrated the method for euthanizing underweight piglets: taking them by the hind legs and smashing their skulls against the concrete floor … Their bloodied bodies were then tossed into a giant bin…”. This describes the gruesome details of the animal abuse that happens at many meat and dairy farms around the country. The entry-level herdsman, Shawn Lyons, was convicted of criminal livestock neglect. He was only the 7th person convicted of animal abuse in the meat industry in American history. With the amount of meat and dairy farms in the United States, it is not likely that Lyons was only the first person to have committed the crime of criminal livestock neglect.

Animals are used as test subjects for medical and cosmetic research and advancement. They are used to test if cosmetic and medical products or medical procedures are safe for human use. While the intentions of animal testing are to help advance cosmetic and medical technology, many people have begun to advocate that it is a form of animal cruelty. If people would not test on other humans why should we test on animals? According to Lori Gruen, a professor of animal studies at Wesleyan University, “Importantly, just because something is scientifically justified doesn’t mean it is ethically justified,” (Gruen). Gruen argues that while we are doing the morally correct thing by not testing potentially harmful experiments on humans, it does not make these actions just. It infringes on the rights of animals because they have just as much of a right to life as humans do.

However, many people claim that the animal rights movement is a waste of time.

Works Cited

1. Texas Society for Biomedical Research. ‘Animal Welfare Is Different Than Animal Rights.’ Animal Experimentation, edited by Susan C. Hunnicutt, Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010002258/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=7ac61c59. Accessed 20 Feb. 2020. Originally published as ‘Animal Welfare and Animal Rights,’, 2011.
2. Par, Yon Soo, and Benjamin Valentino. ‘Who supports animal rights? Here’s what we found.’ Washingtonpost.com, 26 July 2019. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A594647465/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=41ee19e5. Accessed 27 Feb. 2020.
3. Genoways, Ted. ‘Animals Suffer Needlessly for Food Production.’ Vegetarianism, edited by Amy Francis, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010705250/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=bc2229b1. Accessed 27 Feb. 2020. Originally published as ‘Gagged by Big Ag,’ Mother Jones, 2013.
4. Gruen, Lori. ‘Not All Scientific Research on Animals Is Ethically Justified.’ Scientific Research, edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948223/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=fde8116e. Accessed 27 Feb. 2020. Originally published as ‘New Maternal Deprivation Research at U of Wisconsin,’ ethics-animals.blogspot.com, 16 Oct. 2012.

Introduction

While the world may be increasingly interconnected, human rights violations, inequality and poverty still threaten peace and sustainability. Global Citizenship Education (GCED) is UNESCO’s response to these challenges. It works by empowering learners of all ages to understand that these are global, not local issues and to become active promoters of more peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable societies. GCED is a strategic area of UNESCO’s Education Sector program and builds on the work of Peace and Human Rights Education. It aims to instill in learners the values, attitudes and behaviors that support responsible global citizenship: creativity, innovation, and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development. UNESCO’s work in this area is grounded in its own Constitution which aims to build peace in the minds of men and women, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Education 2030 Agenda and Framework for Action, notably Target 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Agenda, the Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1974). GCED aims to develop three main cores: Behavioural, Socio-emotional and cognitive. Imagine that GCED is a puzzle, the first piece encourages us to act locally, nationally or globally to create a more peaceful world. The second component inspires us to have a sense of belonging to common humanity and finally the third piece motivates us to acquire knowledge and to critically think about global issues and the interdependency between countries and problems.

Human life depends on the earth as much as the ocean for our sustenance and livelihoods. Plantlife provides 80 percent of the human diet, and we rely on agriculture as an important economic resource. Forests cover 30 percent of the Earth’s surface, provide vital habitats for millions of species, and important sources for clean air and water, as well as being crucial for combating climate change. Every year, 13 million hectares of forests are lost, while the persistent degradation of drylands has led to the desertification of 3.6 billion hectares, disproportionately affecting poor communities. While 15 percent of the land is protected, biodiversity is still at risk. Nearly 7,000 species of animals and plants have been illegally traded. Wildlife trafficking not only erodes biodiversity, but creates insecurity, fuels conflict, and feeds corruption. Urgent action must be taken to reduce the loss of natural habitats and biodiversity which are part of our common heritage and support global food and water security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and peace and security.

Part A

Definition of Animal abuse and cruelty

Animals in Asia are among the most abused in the world. From bears captured and caged for their ‘bile’, to dogs and cats slaughtered in horrific ways for their meat, exploitation of animals in Asia is common and widespread. There are far fewer laws protecting animals in Asia from cruelty and exploitation than in other continents. This makes the work of dedicated animal welfare charities in Asia like Animals Asia, even harder, as the law is often on the side of animal abusers. The Animal Welfare Act (2015) is a clear and comprehensive law that sets the standard for good animal welfare across Malaysia. While not formally recognizing animal sentience, the Animal Welfare Act (2015) and other regulations acknowledge not only that animals can suffer and that their mental wellbeing is also important. The National Animal Welfare Strategy aims to make Malaysia a leader in animal welfare, not just in South East Asia but across the world. Regulations such as the Malaysian Code of Practice on the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Research (2010) provide detailed guidance on animal care and place the responsibility of that care on individuals and organizations in ownership of the animals in question. Similarly, there are total bans on some inherently cruel activities, including animal fighting and baiting, which are to be commended. The animals whose abuse is most often reported are dogs, cats, horses and livestock. Undercover investigations have revealed that animal abuse abounds in the factory farm industry. But because of the weak protections afforded to livestock under state cruelty laws, only the most shocking cases are reported, and few are ever prosecuted. he Veterinary Services Department today revealed that there was a 30 percent rise in the number of reported animal abuse cases across the country from 510 in 2017 to 662 cases last year. There was also an increase of 10 percent from 463 cases in 2016, compared with the previous year, and more than 90 percent of these cases involved dogs followed by cats. The increase was mainly due to increased public awareness of animal abuse.

Part B

Video of GCED and Animal Cruelty

While there have been many improvements in animal welfare legislation for Malaysia, there are some areas that need to be addressed. Video above shows that animals all over the places been brutally abuse since no strict laws to punish the heartless.

Strategies come up by government

Hunting, while legal with a license, is not regulated to ensure animal welfare is a consideration for all participants. Similarly, while wild animals are only allowed to be bred and kept by license holders, there is significant illegal wildlife trade in Malaysia, including the keeping of wild animals as pets. A further concern is an inconsistency in government-led inspections of regulated facilities. For example, scientific research facilities must be inspected every six months, but there is no such inspection schedule for zoos and other captive animal venues. Governance of animal welfare in Malaysia is held across two government ministries – the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. While the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for all animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act (2015), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment holds jurisdiction over all wildlife – both wild and captive-bred. Generally, animal welfare in Malaysia is overseen by the Animal Welfare Board, which was established under the Animal Welfare Act (2015). The board membership includes representatives from multiple ministries and local authorities to ensure its mandates to produce guidelines, and to promote and educate on animal welfare, are cohesive and disseminated across the country. Since the API was first published in 2014, Malaysia has introduced new animal welfare legislation and enforcement regulations. This process included the passing of the Animal Welfare Act (2015) and supplementary regulations. The Government of Malaysia has collaborated with the OIE through the development of the National Animal Welfare Strategy, the Animal Welfare Act (2015) and supporting regulations and codes of practice. The Government of Malaysia is encouraged to continue to develop and improve its animal welfare legislation, building on the progress made over the past several years. The Government is encouraged to align all animal welfare under one ministry to ensure good animal welfare protections for all species. The Government of Malaysia is strongly urged to ban cruel practices, such as the culling of dogs for population and rabies control. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Animal abusing cases in Malaysia

The Star had highlighted on the recent cases of animal cruelty in Selangor. The Selangor Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SCPA) is shocked by the abuse and butchering of several stray dogs at People’s Housing Project Wahyu 2 in Selayang. They also highlighted on several cases that also happens. As, a CCTV clip went viral, showing a young boy stepping on a kitten while his mother looked on without stopping him. Next on Sept 11, two men were caught on camera putting a cat into a clothes dryer at a laundromat before turning on the machine, killing the pregnant feline. Lastly, a single mother was sentenced to a night in jail and fined RM7,000 for feeding her dog 32 sewing needles in Kinarut, near Kota Kinabalu. There were more cases overall the social medias such as Facebook and Twitter.

Part C

Ways to prevent animal abusing and Cruelty

Be a responsible pet owner. Know about and fulfil the needs of your pet. Don’t just concern yourself with basic needs and give your pet positive experiences that really enhance its well-being. Be an example of kindness to other pets. Foster a pet that has suffered abandonment. Sadly, many pets are relinquished to shelters for various reasons. Foster homes help these animals to recover and prepare them to move onto a new permanent loving home. Intervene if you witness animal cruelty, abuse or neglect. Do what you can to stop someone from mistreating an animal. However, be sensible and don’t put yourself in danger. If necessary, seek help from other witnesses. Report animal cruelty, abuse or neglect. If you witness any form of animal cruelty, report it to the police or other authorities. Act immediately to prevent further cruelty. Teach your children to have respect for animals. Set a good example by being respectful towards animals. Show children how to treat animals with love and consideration. Help them to grow up to become the next generation of advocates for animals. Demand stricter laws for the protection of animals. Stronger animal welfare laws and harsher penalties will lead to fewer cruelty cases. Shelter an animal in need. You can be the helping hand that an animal need. An animal that has been mistreated needs support, sometimes immediately. You can make a real difference by taking an animal out of a harmful situation. Consider that neglect of animals can be closely linked to domestic violence. Animal abuse and domestic abuse are often closely connected. By reporting your suspicions, you may also be helping both the animal in need and the family concerned. See also “The link between cruelty to animals and violence to humans”. Educate people around you about the issue. Help people to understand that they can intervene in situations where animals are being neglected or even tormented. Animals have a right to live without fear or pain, and we have a responsibility to step in if their rights aren’t respected.

Cognitive

knowledge and thinking skills necessary to better understand the world and its complexities. So, what do you do if you notice an animal that appears to be suffering from one or more of these issues? Call your local animal welfare agency immediately.

In most areas, someone from the local animal control agency, humane organization, or animal shelter will be responsible for investigating and enforcing the local anti-cruelty laws, but if you don’t know who’s in charge in your city or town, you can always call the local police non-emergency number to find out who to report the cruelty to. Also, in many locales, 311 connects directly to city services, who will know where to direct you.

Socio-emotional

Values, attitudes and social skills that enable learners to develop affectively, psychosocially, and physically and to enable them to live together with others respectfully and peacefully. Signs include open wounds, multiple scars, limping, or difficulty walking. Many dogs that suffer direct violence will also display behaviours such as hiding, walking with their head down and tail between their legs, or cringing when people approach, but since those can also occur for other reasons, those behavioural signs alone shouldn’t be taken as definitive proof that a dog is being hurt.

Behavioural

Conduct, performance, practical application and engagement. Most people don’t go so far as to actually lay hands on their dog to hurt them. But what happens with far too many owners is just as bad: they neglect the needs of their dog. Signs of neglect include injuries or illnesses that linger untreated, poor living conditions (including filth and dangerous objects near the dog and being left outside in bad weather), bones being visible through the skin, and extremely poor grooming.

Conclusion

Of course, the best way to fight cruelty is to teach as many people as possible how their pets should be treated and what they should never ever do. Parents and educators should teach children how to safely and humanely interact with animals at an early age, as well as how they can tell if an animal is being harmed and what to do about it. You can help spread the word by utilizing your own community to do so. For instance, you can share messages about proper treatment of animals on your social networks or offer to teach a class at your local elementary school or even pre-school. Beyond this, people need to stand up for what they believe in when they witness animal cruelty and take a stand by reporting the behaviour. The more often that abusive individuals are punished, the less likely others are to do the same thing.

Reflexive Journal

I had chosen Animal Abuse and Cruelty because I found the cases were constantly increasing and personally felt the rules to stricter for those involve and reason behind the cases. I found still so many of us never took the issue seriously. Day by day people are posting about Animal Abuse and Cruelty in Social Medias as Facebook and Twitter. And sadly, most of us just react, like, comment and share the posts. Government should find some ways to reduce the cases. And treat the case as the case of Human abusive. For every point structure it is difficult to find the source for this topic. I was tried to find evidences from various of websites, social medias and newspaper articles. Hence, I still try to do my best to present the best from my work.

In conclusion, it develops me in time management and builds my skills in analysis and solving problems. What I wish was, the reduce of the Animal Abuse and Cruelty cases all over Malaysia and other countries. Everyone should adopt and reuse without thinking. Animals are a part of God’s creation and there should be fairness to treat them too.

References

1. CAMOENS, A. (2019, January 7). Selangor SPCA shocked by recent cases of animal cruelty. The Star Online. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/01/07/selangor-spca-shocked-by-recent-cases-of-animal-cruelty
2. Https://plus.google.com/+UNESCO. (2018, February 21). What is global citizenship education? UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced/definition
3. Facts about cruelty to animals in Asia. (n.d.). Home. https://www.animalsasia.org/intl/facts-about-cruelty-to-animals-in-asia.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsqrmxem66AIVViQrCh1-YwZSEAAYAiAAEgIdTPD_BwE
4. Animal abuse on the rise in Malaysia, statistics show. (2018, August 27). Malay Mail | Breaking News, Malaysia, World, Lifestyle News. https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2018/08/27/animal-abuse-on-the-rise-in-malaysia-statistics-show/1666323

This is not going to be the easiest topic to read about but we all need to realize what’s going on. We all know it’s happening and we try to avoid hearing about it because it’s sad to think about. How are we supposed to help prevent animal abuse when nobody is willing to stand up for the innocent animals being mistreated. I’m so tired of seeing stories and videos all over social media of another animal being abused. It could be something as small as declawing a cat, it’s not right. No animal deserves to be treated so poorly. I will never understand how someone could do such a horrible thing to these innocent animals.

On a late May afternoon last year in southwest Baltimore, a 2 year old female pit bull terrier was doused in gasoline and set alight. A young city policewoman on her regular patrol of the neighborhood turned her squad car onto the 1600 block of Presbury Street and saw a cloud of black smoke rising from the burning dog. She hopped out, ran past idle onlookers and managed to put out the flames with her sweater. The dog, named Phoenix, survived for four days with burns over 95 percent of her body, but soon began to succumb to kidney failure and had to be euthanized.

The scale, speed and intensity of the response were striking. The subject of animal abuse, especially the abuse of pit bulls in dog fighting activities, has achieved a higher profile after the 2007 arrest of the N.F.L. star Michael Vick for operating an illegal interstate dog fighting operation in Surry County, Va. But the pit bull is merely the most publicized victim of a growing number of professionals including police officers, prosecutors, psychologists, social workers, animal control officers, veterinarians and dogcatchers are now addressing; wanton cruelty toward animals. Before 1990, only six states had felony provisions in their animal ­cruelty laws; now 46 do. Two years ago, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals formed the nation’s first Mobile Animal Crime Scene Investigation Unit, a rolling veterinary hospital and forensic lab that travels around the country helping traditional law enforcement agencies follow the evidentiary trails of wounded or dead animals back to their abusers. Every 60 seconds, an animal gets abuse. That’s unconscionable, especially in our advanced culture, but animal cruelty continues to occur all over the world. (Charles Siebert, of “The Wauchula Woods Accord: Toward a New Understanding of Animals.”)

Animal cruelty can take many different forms, but the impact is always the same. An animal capable of love and creating social relationships experience pain, fear, and desperation. And it needs to stop. We live in a world that not only turns a blind eye to animal cruelty but condones it whether through indifference or legislation. It’s legal to raise chickens in deplorable conditions for the sole purpose of slaughtering them later. If that isn’t animal cruelty, then what is? The problem is that there aren’t enough people fighting for animal rights. If everyone started to look at animals and not just dogs and cats as fellow animals who share our planet, we would see far fewer cases of cruelty toward animals.

Reading all these articles destroyed me. It’s sad to see all the stories and nobody realizing it’s getting worse. Some people are noticing but we’re not doing enough for them. They all have feelings and they can feel pain. It’s time to make that change for them, they don’t deserve this. They need to be treated like family because they are family. If everyone can experience the love they feel for their owners then they will understand they are more than just animals. Let’s make that change and show our pets the love they deserve.

It is stated that more than 100 million animals die each year in experimentation. Only a small percentage of them are going to survive. The issue of animal testing has brought a lot of controversies around the world. Is animal testing for non-essential medication morally wrong? There are many aspects to the problem. There are both people in favor of and against animal testing. In my opinion, any kind of animal abuse is morally wrong.

First and foremost, we should start by asking ourselves what does it mean to act morally. To act morally means to follow established rules. A person who acts morally adheres to certain rules of behavior. In other words, he acts in a manner consistent with his conscience. He can distinguish what is right or wrong. However, everyone has different morals. Some people might have different perceptions of what is good or bad.

Without a doubt, there are myriad of people who act immorally. Acts of immoral behavior include stealing, murdering, or fraud. Also, cruel acts done on animals can be considered morally wrong. What is most devastating is the fact that these animals are innocent and helpless. Animal abuse is a serious issue humanity has been dealing with. Supporters of animal rights fight for a ban on experimenting on animals. On the other hand, there are people who claim that animals are strongly needed in research.

From my point of view, the disadvantages of animal testing outweigh the advantages. Animals like mice, rats, frogs, or guinea pigs are used each year in brutal experiments. For instance, they are used by students and teachers in laboratories. Very common these days is cosmetics testing. Besides, they are used for testing drugs for humans. These animals are usually kept in horrible conditions before they die. The substance which is going to be tested is given to the animal. Next, the animal is under observation for several days. Without a doubt, these animals experience terrible torture.

On the other hand, some people state that animal testing causes a lot of benefits for human beings. Many scientists say that animal testing is conducted for the benefit of people. It is a fact that without these animals we wouldn’t have had different kinds of vaccines that save people’s life. What needs to be mentioned is that animal testing allows you to capture the negative sides of products. As a result, they are protecting people from using them. However, scientists should consider different ways of testing drugs or chemicals without harming helpless animals.

There are different ways of looking at this problem. When testing those products, many animal lives are exposed to side effects or even death. On the one hand, we can consider animal testing as a cruel practice that should end immediately around the world. On the other hand, animal testing shows a negative side of products. Therefore, these animals contribute to saving people’s lives. I believe cosmetics that were animal-tested should be prohibited. When it comes to medication, I would suggest alternative ways to test products.

The ethical side of animal testing is shown in the book “Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals” by Peter Singer. The Australian philosopher raises an important and interesting voice in the discussion about animal abuse. Singer describes the brutality of animal testing and gives alternatives to animal tests. He mentions the concept of speciesism. The philosopher states that speciesism, “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, 1975, p. 6). This idea suggests that each species, both human and animals, should be treated equally.

Peter Singer, who is a supporter of animal rights, gives strong arguments on why animal testing is morally wrong. Without a doubt, animal abuse is morally wrong because it causes animal horrible pain. According to Singer, moral norms should not only apply to humans, but to all of the beings who are able to feel pain. In my opinion, human beings have been really selfish. I think morality means almost nothing when compared with their egoistic interests.

It is known that there is a big difference between human and non-human animals. As a result, there was formed some kind of inequality. People have always been superior to animals. We kill them to eat nutritious food or to have a soft winter coat. It is hard to implement changes to these behaviors because humanity has learned to do it to survive. In my opinion, it is shocking that killing an animal seems easier than killing a human being. Almost everyone is aware that killing a person is morally wrong. I think we are equal with animals when it comes to feeling pain or happiness I believe that this is the reason we should consider killing them as an immoral act.

Peter Singer explains that if we think killing a human is a horrible act then, we shouldn’t harm animals either. Even though there are many differences between an animal and a human, it doesn’t mean they should be killed based on a fact that they are, for example, intellectually developed at a lower level than humans. Singer concludes, “The claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral idea, not assertion of fact” (Singer, 1975, p. 4).

When it comes to exploitation, it is beneficial to mention the social system in Feudal Europe. Peasants would spend their entire lives as farmers working in the fields for their lords. Every kind of exploitation of a human being eventually ended. It was morally wrong to use other people because of their different skin color or financial status. Therefore, I think the matter of animal abuse should be considered the same way. To this Singer would comment, “There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests” (Singer, 1975, p. 5). Just because animals don’t have the same interests as human beings, that doesn’t justify causing them pain. What is more, I believe animals have the same needs as human beings. Both humans and animals need other human affection and compassion.

In conclusion, cosmetics testing, chemical testing, or medication testing can be replaced with different types of testing. Testing non-essential products like a shampoo should stop immediately. Non-essential medication testing should be replaced with alternative ways of testing. I believe medicine is developed enough to try different ways of experimentation that could stop harming other species. What is more, some animals may react differently to a substance which can make the results imprecise. Singer also suggests trying to become a vegetarian. It is a fact that people can survive without eating meat. Eating vegetables can be more beneficial than eating meat. I’m deeply convinced that animal testing can be avoided and they should be replaced immediately. Not only testing for non-essential products is useless but it also causes extreme pain to innocent animals.

On the other hand, some people believe animals are necessary for research. It is said that scientists use animals for testing products to make our lives better. It is a fact that animals contributed to the development of vaccines and new medical treatments. The philosopher Carl Cohen shows a different point of view compared to Singer’s. Cohen in his article “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research”, describes why he thinks animals have no rights. According to Cohen, animals can’t have rights because “Animals… lack the capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none…” (Cohen, 1986, p. 866). However, I believe animals possess a sense of morality. They can tell if a person is bad. Animals have the awareness of what is surrounding them and they can react in different situations. They can show love, anger or, happiness. Therefore, I believe animals possess the capacity for free moral judgment.

What is more, Cohen states that there are many positive aspects of animal testing. He states “The sum of the benefits of their use is utterly beyond quantification. The elimination of horrible disease, the increase of longevity, the avoidance of great pain, the saving of lives, and the improvement of the quality of lives…” (Cohen, 1986, p. 868). I don’t fully agree with the author. I believe people should stop acting selfishly. I’m fully convinced there are many different ways that a test can be conducted. It is a truly coward behavior to use animals that are not able to defend themselves. I’d suggest coming up with an idea that would be beneficial for both a human being and an animal.

I can’t agree with Cohen’s ideas who states that “It would be a serious error to suppose, however, that alternative techniques could soon be used in most research now using live animal subjects” (Cohen, 1986, p. 868). Cohen fully disagrees with the idea of using alternative methods of animal testing. He believes that nothing can replace living organisms. I partly agree that testing a drug gives the best results on living organisms. However, it is beneficial to create ways of testing that could save not only people’s lives but also animals.

As I showed above there are two sides to looking at this problem. In my point of view, these two philosophers have different morals. Their personal believes and values differ from each other. Singer believes that testing drugs or cosmetics is sometimes unnecessary due to the alternative ways of testing products. Cohen, however, thinks that sometimes we have to harm an animal in order to save someone’s life. I deeply support Singer’s ideas I found his book highly eye-opening and persuasive. It made me realize that experiments on animals shouldn’t be carried out if they raise moral and ethical reservations.

Testing non-essential products like cosmetics or some medication should be avoided. When it comes to drugs that save our lives we could consider using alternative ways such as using human cells. I think the main difference should be made in our thinking and the way we perceive things. Human beings are aware what is morally wrong, for example, killing a human being. We know that he and his family would suffer. Killing an animal also causes extreme suffering. I believe that with high developed technology, animal test will soon be abolished all around the world.

References

1. Cohen, C. (1986). The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research. New England Journal of Medicine. 315: 865-870. Retrieved from https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=moreaexp
2. Singer, P. (1975). All Animals Are Equal… In Animal Liberation. A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. (pp. 1–23). HarperCollins. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/rsenr/wfb175/singer.pdf

Imagine a syringe being forced down your throat to inject a chemical into your stomach, or being restrained and forced to breathe sickening vapors for hours. That’s the cruel reality of animal testing for millions of mice, rabbits, dogs and other animals worldwide, the Human Society International estates. With today’s innovations and with the advancement of technology, other methods besides animal testing should be considered. The harm that is committed to these animals because they are not considered human is inhumane and not ethical. Most of the time, the experiments are often done without any painkillers, and the animals are subject to horrific pain and suffering. Not to mention the living circumstances these animals are obligated to be in. They are kept captive and lonely, while some are placed in artificial settings, never seeing natural daylight. They spend their lives in cages, stressed in agony and fear. In addition, most experiments have been considered pointless, due to the difference in the correlation of human physiology to those of animals. Certain drugs reactions are not the same in human and animals. Millions of animals are killed in laboratories and these animals aren’t legally protected and mistreated: this violates animal rights. Although it has become an acceptable way of testing, animal testing has been acknowledged to be unreliable and unsuccessful and alternatives of testing have been proven more effective and humane. However, it should be acknowledged that no product is worth the pain these animals suffer, and something must be done to change the federal laws of testing to protect and help defenseless, and innocent animals against human cruelty.

Unquestionably, testing on animals has been our method for experimenting for as long as we can go back in history. Some of the scientific community state that they have to test on animals to develop medicine and for many other biomedical advancements. Our society is under the perception that it’s our only way of keeping products safe for humans. However, with how much science has evolved, other methods have certainly proven to be better and have given accurate testing results. Organizations to protect animals have brought awareness of the inhumane ways used for testing. Social media has brought attention to cruelty during experimentation, and people are becoming more aware of the truth: and in the past recent years there has been a demand for change. Humane organizations are fighting for the rights of animals and exposing the truth worldwide. For instance, the organizations are making people aware that non- animal testing experiments give accurate results, and do no put humans at risk. Conversely, not all products that have been tested on animals can guarantee safety for humans 100%. In fact, the experiments on animals have many flaws. Dr. Elias Zerhourni, who has written articles on this matters states:

We have moved away from studying human disease in humans… We all Drank the Kool- Aid on that one, me included…The problem is that animal testing hasn’t worked, and its time we stop dancing around the problem…We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans. (Zerhouni)

Today’s alternative methods are a lot more sophisticated and plenty of options are available, such as using human cells through a procedure called vitro. Vitro is an “organ-on-chip,” (Wyss) made, this chip contains the real human cells, and it’s essentially a copy of human organs. The design of the chip is exactly that of a human’s actual physiology, and it responds to drugs and or treatment and toxicity like a real human would. Vitro testing will not only protect animals; it is also more efficient with the outcome results. Statistics have shown that “what they found is that development and uptake of alternative technologies has been steadily gaining pace, culminating in an exponential rise since the millennium, indeed more than 70% of all in vitro assays captured by the survey were used since 2010, peaking at just over 190,000 in 2012,” (Chris Magee) verses animal testing that it has an outcome of 92% of the time the testing fail to give accurate results, making the experiment wasteful and expensive. With alternatives such as vitro that provides high accuracy for experiments, this method should be adapted instead of testing the old fashion way on animals. All in all, it has been proven that animals do not always give results or react the way humans would to certain products, therefore animals should not be the subjected to these cruel experiments have high failure rates.

Nonetheless, other computer advancements have been developed that have the activity of biology of humans. The computer models called in silico provide analysis of the human genome. It has been proven to precisely diagnose the reactions humans would have towards drugs, making it a method better than to test on animals. Thereupon, this is a sophisticated technology that mimic’s human’s bodies and pathology, and will allow the ability to adapt new ethical experimentation. Not to mention, in silico will also test for toxicity and chemicals. This computer method can be used versus using animals when testing for toxicity. When toxicity is tested on animals, they are forced to swallow and inhale huge qualities of toxic chemicals poisoning and causing pain and most end up killed. Testing for disease of the brain has also evolved, and computers can be used to safely to test and evaluate the brain. Techniques such as (MRI), which is a magnetic resonance imagine can be safely used on human volunteers to test for some products. What this does is “temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation,” (PETA) this would replace the testing on animals such as monkeys, cats and rats, preventing the cruel act of damaging their brains.

Whereas, for medical practice there has also been a huge advancement. Medical students can now replace animal testing with a “human- patient simulator,”

(PETA) this simulator is called a TruamaMan, and it acts as a human, it breathes and bleeds, and has all the layers of skin and tissues humans have. Studies have shown that using TruamaMan, “will improve lifesaving skills better than courses that require students to cut into live pigs, goats, or dogs,” (Dr. Elias Zerhoui). This type of replacement will react like a human, and will allow better training for all medical professionals. Scientist have developed, so many modern methods to study the human health and potential risk of unsafe products, with options of using methods that correlate to a real human Experiments and studies that have accurately had many successes should continue being the primary source of testing.

Furthermore, another issue is cosmetic testing, the testing process used is horrific. Chemicals are forced down their throats or tested in their eyes, “This is the ugly secret of the beauty industry,” (PETA) that they administer unrealistic massive amounts of toxic and chemicals to these animals just to determine what would cause death, blindness, bleeding of skin, and many more terrible side effects. When these companies have the alternatives to use modern methods and provide products that are safe for humans. Options of cruelty free are in the market, and the fact that the cosmetic companies continue to test on animals is unnecessary, the resources to stop cruel testing on animals are an option. Not to mention that is has been proven, that the alternatives have better results then testing on animals. One alternative for the cosmetic industry is “artificial human skin, “It’s a very powerful tool for doing away with the traditional experiments, “ (Dr. Carol Barker) states who is the founder of XCellR8, a model that mimics the human skin. The advantage of the XCellR8 is that the “models are 3D, contains all the critical layers that human skin contains including our skin barrier, which is very important in assessing cosmetic function and cosmetic safety,” (Dr. Carol Baker) with this in mind, the cosmetic industry should be regulated to adapt ethical testing, because its humane and most importantly more accurate while providing safety for humans. Overall cosmetic testing is a cruel act and unnecessary.

With all this said, the testing of animals is flawed and not always valid and the lack of credibility of results not relevant to humans. The results can differ and be unreliable as there are many limitations and different species who respond differently, just as many humans respond differently to drugs and products. Therefore, most testing has been irrelevant and unsuccessful and does not guarantee the safety of humans. These problems have been acknowledged and ignored. For instance, keeping animals in certain environments alter behaviors in animals, and can have a different outcome for a test “ Cortisone levels rise in monkeys watching other monkeys being restrained, blood pressure in and heart rates elevate in rats watching other rats being decapitated,” (The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation) the stress and fear will cause a different outcome on the experiment giving inaccurate results. The lack of results produced by testing on animals has been acknowledged, yet these methods continue to be used. The fact that its apparent that animals’ responses are altered due to the state they are kept in; the reactions they have do not correlate with those of humans making this a reason why testing on animals be replaced with those of modern testing.

Correspondingly, general points of proponents have been made of why it is essential to animal test. These proponents claim that new developments are successful due to animal testing “the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories,” (ProCon.org) has claimed that it’s a requirement for the safety of humans to test on animals first. Stating as well, that animal testing has allowed for many advancements of new medical breakthroughs and biomedical research, as well as contributed to the understanding of many diseases such as “breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, pacemakers,” the pros of testing have greatly been argued by proponents: that it would not have been discovered any other way. Another reason claimed by proponents to test on animals is that they have a shorter lifespan, allowing scientist to test an entire life cycle and are able to evaluate the outcome. Another example used is that animals do not have cognitive ability and therefore should not be treated as humans. In addition, its stated that similarity of animals and humans help research, “Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans” therefore making these species ideal for testing.

In contrast, its debated by the Human Harms of Animal Experimentation and the FDA and many other researchers, that animal testing is inaccurate, and most of the experiments done on animals fail to give results of how humans would respond to treatment, because of the difference in diseases in animals and humans. For instance, animals were induced with the cancer to study the biochemical properties and possible treatments “significant limitations exist and the ability to faithfully mirror the complex process of human carcinogenesis; the limitations are evidenced by the highest of any disease category, clinical failure rate of cancer drugs,” the difference in our nervous system versus animals does not allow for accurate results, despite any DNA similarities. Its been stated by the FDA “that animal testing has increased in failure and its percent has gone up to 96%, animals predicted a passing test when in reality they were not safe. “(Human Harms of Animal Experimentation), the recognition that testing on animals does not help develop any biomedical research is evident.

Debates on unethical treatment of animals have become a concern, and those who oppose demand humane treatment for all animals. After all, with so many alternatives that have proven to show accurate testing such as vitro and the TrumaMan the need to test on animals should be eradicated. Additionally, more laws protecting the animals should be enforced. Animals should be treated with care and compassion as they do feel fear and pain just like humans. Speaking out against the cosmetic industry, laws to ban testing on animals should be applied, since other alternatives of testing that are far more superior and will have a successful outcome and are available. Scientist has scientifically validated alternatives, and the government should be urged to reduce animal use. The government’s involvement will help regulate companies to use alternatives to testing, instead those of unethical of testing on animals.

The harm committed on animals should not be ignored, in conclusion, animals should be protected and have rights. Nonetheless, the failure rate of testing on animals is high and the standards of the way we test should be changed. Animals used for experiments live in fear, pain, stress and agony. This is a cruel act, these animals can’t defend themselves or tell us they are in pain, it is our job to fight for them and help them. Not to mention, that this is unnecessary because the accuracy of results have been proven over and over to be flawed. Non- bias administrations such as the FDA state “92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animals test fail in humans,” (FDA) it’s wasteful and misleading to test on animals. They are subject to a life of suffering for irrelevant research that does not guarantee safety for humans. Furthermore, we have the technology and its cost less and faster, its time we move forward and start testing in modern, sophisticated ways versus unethical.

The entire history of human civilization is inseparable from the relationship with animals. Nevertheless, if earlier these relationships were based solely on joint existence on the planet, nowadays these relationships have acquired a completely different character. For many decades in a row, people perceive animals not only as ‘our little friends’, but first of all as experimental material. It is a common-known fact that the animals available in various laboratories are used by researchers for a variety of experiments, ranging from pharmacological studies and ending with testing cosmetic products. In the modern world, the problem of using animals in experiments is quite acute; moreover, there are a number of pros and cons of this aspect of modern experimental science. Of course, the justifying fact is that such experiments and studies on animals have given people the opportunity to better investigate a number of dangerous diseases and consequently to develop methods to combat them, or even find ways to prevent them. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that such actions that are aimed at the benefit of people and civilization at the same time often neglect not only the rights of animals but ultimately their lives. We sacrifice those whom we have to love so much and call ‘our little friends’ choosing first of all human needs in the field of medicine, cosmetology or other science, but animals in their turn do not have any right to choose at all.

Cruel actions towards animals in the form of various scientific experiments and tests are to be forbidden since they are not justifying the sacrifice of the life of a living being, despite the fact that the results of these studies are sometimes useful for a number of scientific fields.

The scientific tradition of using animals in experiments has a long history and has its roots in ancient times, moreover, according to the statements of some historical sources, the ancient Greek doctors were the first to use animals in their research. In addition, Rachel Hajar in her article ‘Animal Testing and Medicine’ also argues, that Aristotle and Erasistratus were the first doctors-scientists who not only have studied animals but also conducted experiments on them (Hajar 42). A keen interest in the study of animals, as well as experimental studies related to them, was increasing over the time and centuries, and now it is difficult to imagine a modern research field without the application of experiments on animals. This side of modern science has become so much ingrained in the consciousness of society that for many people such methods of study are considered to be quite acceptable. Indeed, it is hard to deny the fact that animal experiments have made many useful discoveries in the world of science, and as a result, has brought new visions of studies various diseases.

Despite some immoral and cruel aspects of such studies, they still brought excellent results primarily in the field of medicine, since it was the first area of study where experiments on animals began to use. It is impossible not to admit the fact that, first of all, such serious and dangerous diseases as cancer, AIDS, or even some types of addictions, such as drug addiction, were studied more deeply due to such experiments. Thus, in the 40s, in the process of conducting experiments on animals, some of the causes of cancer have been established, namely, scientists have found that asbestos, as well as low-level ionizing radiation, often contribute to the emergence of cancer cells (Anderegg et al. 1). Major discoveries in AIDS research field have also been made through the use of rabbits and chimpanzees during studies of this disease, where the above-mentioned animals have helped not only to establish the symptoms and progress of the disease but also have been used in testing various anti-AIDS therapies (Anderegg et al. 2). In addition to the study of severe diseases, various drugs are also being studied on animals. The twentieth century was truly the greatest surge in medicine testing on animals because it was the period when the greatest pharmaceutical factories and plants began to develop. In addition, in 1938, the United States adopted the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, requiring all manufacturers of food, drugs, cosmetics and other human consumption products to conduct mandatory testing of their products on animals before starting production (Hajar 43). Nowadays there is a completely opposite trend when manufacturers deliberately indicate on their products that their products are not tested on animals. First of all, this trend has appeared due to a change in society’s perception of the problem of animal research. More and more common people, as well as scientists, are convinced that modern science should leave experiments on animals in the past. In addition, this assumption is grounded on well-founded scientific facts, which claim that more and more modern research can be carried out without the obligatory use of animals. Thus, for example, most scientists agree that not always certain animal testing products have the same effect on humans (Anderegg et al. 10). In addition, despite some similarities in the structure of cells and body systems, the human body is still different from the animal body; hence one cannot give an absolute guarantee of some products safe for humans by testing it only on animals (Hajar 44). The same can be said about the study of human diseases in animal models. In most cases, the results of studies cannot give an absolute picture of a certain disease, because there are always a number of deviations affecting the final result. Aisha Akhtar, in her article on animal experiments, argues that there is always a sufficient share of deviation between “human illnesses and the same diseases that artificially developed in animals” (Akhtar 409). According to her opinion, the result of such inconsistencies in research lies in ‘interspecies differences in physiology and genetics’, which in their turn prevent the establishment of the final conclusion in the experiment (Akhtar 410). Thus we can say that such experiments do not always support a particular theory, in addition, they often only harm both the person and the animal. The problem is that if the experiment harms the person, it is the choice of the person itself since even Akhtar claims that in most of the cases ‘people are harmed because of deceptive animal testing results'(Akhtar 412). Nevertheless, in the cases when researches harm to animals, it is worth noting that they have no choice because they are only a research tool in the human’s hands.

The above-mentioned opinion is now spreading in all countries where experiments on animals are considered a relic of the past and nothing more than cruelty to other living beings. Previously, scientists only studied the effect of various diseases or medications on the animal’s condition and did not take into account the feelings of the animal at all. Now one can see a quite different picture when more and more scientists practically demonstrate what harm animals get during the experiment. Hence, it was practically brought that the animal just as the human experiences pain, fear, panic and many more negative emotions associated with their exploitation (Newkirk 30). Newkirk also states that about “millions of animals are used in experiments every year”, and very often these animals die from cruel and useless experiments (Newkirk 29). Thus, almost all the scientific articles’ authors mentioned in this essay agree that now humanity does not need such experiments on animals, since modern scientific and technical progress allows not using tissues of living beings, but instead of it artificial models may be applied.

Thus, one can conclude that modern science, as well as medicine, no longer needs endless and highly cruel experiments and research on animals, which are often useless. If earlier such studies were necessary for the study of various diseases or testing of certain products, it is evidenced the opposite, namely that the results obtained in animal studies often have a very different result if applied to humans. This is due to a number of genetic and physiological differences between humans and animals. Therefore, humanity must stop destroying innocent animals under the guise of scientific research, and instead one must come to understand that animals are not a tool for experiments, but our little friends.