A Peek at Animal Testing.

Animal research, vivisection, animal testing, animal experimentation: Whatever you want to call it, it is still wrong. Here's a short video to give you a better idea of what animals are forced to go through for us... I know this may seem extreme, but this is what happens. Ask yourself: Is this really necessary?

My Take on Animal Research.

When I think of animal research, I picture great apes, monkeys, rats or rabbits with lipstick on their mouths, blisters, cuts, growths on their bodies, scientists sticking needles in their arms, the animals screaming out with terror and about to return them to their small, cold, hard cages where they are kept. I wonder if anything positive can really come of such suffering. Today in class, we talked about Baruch A. Brody and his viewpoint of how animals are inferior and, if testing benefits humans, it should be done. We have an obligation to our own species which overcomes the interests of non-human animals. Then, the point was brought up about where the line is drawn between animal testing. If it benefits cancer treatment research, then is this a more justifiable reason for testing on animals than stopping hang nails from happening? No matter what we test on animals, scientists realize results will differ because animals' anatomy differs from ours and what effects them one way could be totally different on a person. Basically, animals have a different genetic make up so the research that is done may be useless more often than not. So, what's the point of animal testing? Why do some companies choose to still practice it while others go out of their way to show that they do not?

Signs like "If we stop animal testing, who will stop the real killers?" convinces human beings that their interests are superior to animals and that all research is to benefit our species. To me, just like it’s wrong to experiment on children, people of color, disabled people or any human being without their consent, it’s also wrong to experiment on animals. Even though most animals used for animal testing are breed for that purpose, this is not justification to use them in such a way. This is like saying a person gave birth to a child and now that parent can do whatever she wants to the child because she gave it life for her own purposes. Animal testing is also expensive; housing, food, and caring for animals comes at a high cost. Also, because animals used for testing and research are in a lab and not their natural habitat, they are under a great deal of stress which can affect the accuracy of tests. Many drugs being tested on animals react differently when a body is under stress. Sure, there have been many breakthroughs in the medical industry when testing on animals took place but these results could have come about without sacrificing a life / well being of an animal. While there are endless lists of pros and cons about animal testing, but the question remains of whether the benefits of animal testing outweighs the problems associated with the practice?

My question to you is: If many companies and research facilities are able to test their products or ideas without the usage of animals, why is the practice still being performed if it is not necessary? What makes a company or scientist believe the benefits do outweigh the costs?

Response to "Hunting vs. Factory Farming."

Response #11

In Jenna's blog, she talks about her take on hunting and how it should only be done for the survival of a human being and not for sport. She then talks about the conditions of factory farms and how it may be more humane to kill an animal in the wild than have it suffer its whole life, without seeing the outdoors, up to the point where it is slaughtered for human consumption. She states, "If the hunter that is hunting for sport kills the animal and actually eats it and uses it then he has not wasted." In Native American cultures, all parts of an animal was used in order to make use of the life they took. She asks, "Do you think it is “morally” better to hunt an animal yourself then it would be to buy it from a store, where the animal has been produced from such a place as a factory farm?"

I think taking a life (animal or human) in any way is simply wrong, especially for human consumption. However, I can not change the minds of all meat-eaters to choose not to consume animals so buying meat from local farms or hunting animals instead of supporting big industries is better, in my opinion. My uncle owns a meat business, I guess you would call it, where he raises his own cattle and then kills it to sell locally for food. This way is more environmentally friendly, healthy, and the cows at least get to see daylight and have some what of a life. Now, I am not condoning the killing of animals for food but if I was to choose where to get my meat, I would buy from local farms. That way, I'm supporting local businesses (and my Uncle) and I have a better idea of what I am eating. Hunting, on the other hand, is something I could never do because I am actually taking a life out of the animal's natural habitat and preparing it myself. I do think this would be better than having factory farms because, that way, the conflict of how people should not eat animals if they could not kill it themselves would be solved.

My morals go against killing and eating animals all together, but I see how hunting and buying animal meat from local farms could be more humane, healthy, and morally correct compared to supporting the factory farming industry and what they do to the animals they slaughter and employees who work there. If the lives of animals have to be sacrificed for human's satisfaction, hunting is the better way to go. There is nothing good about factory farming... End of story.

My question to you is: Are factory farms and individually owned local/small farms really any different in their ways of killing animals for consumption, in your opinion? Also, in what ways can factory farming be defended as moral and necessary in our society?