King Ylmar C.

Talag Position Paper Draft

12-A EAPP

I love animals, do you?

To begin this paper I need you to acknowledge something

extremely important as an individual. On the off chance that we contrast
the life of humans with animals, will you informatively consent to be
detained daintily regardless of whether it is truly against your willingness?
You will be put in jail in a pen where you have no control in anything or
everything as though you perpetrated a wrongdoing or an encroachment
against the laws even though you did literally nothing unlawful (PETA,
2017).

If we think cautiously, animals and humans are more alike than

different in a way that both beings feel harmed, stressed, and tensioned.
However, the greatest contrast people have with animals is that the
former are rational beings who have reserved their privileges, given that
they are mentally and legally capable, to give knowing permission to
whatever will be performed to and/or asked of them (from choosing what
to eat for snack to undergoing a major surgery or participating in a
research as a subject per se). Yet, it’s an altogether different picture from
the vantage point of animals. For one, animals are not blessed with
rational minds to reason out with their surroundings, much more to
oppose a procedure that is incessantly performed on them. Despite that,
they are not at all innocent with how the world works because they too,
like humans, are geared with instincts to survive. Some even have
systems like humans which allow them to feel the slightest of pain,
anxiety, hopelessness, fear, and whatnot.
 As humans, we are expected to act rationally as it is the only fine
line which departs us from animals. By thinking rationally, humans should
be logical enough to see the world around them, especially living entities,
with respect and dignity and to treat them humanely. If we put ourselves
in these animals’ shoes, we wouldn’t want to be guinea pigs if we know
that the process would be painful or extremely emotionally provoking.

In every research, the balance between the risk and benefits must
be outweighed. Inflicting harm on animals is a risk that will always
outweigh the benefit and is always a subject for abuse by humans.

Nonetheless, it would be understandable during the pre-

technological era if researchers used animals in a study to save the lives
of thousands or millions more because before there just weren’t enough
alternatives. Thus, the benefits of animal research far outweighed the
risks. Even then, including animals in laboratory research must had been
done humanely which means that the researchers must had ensured, to
the maximum of their effort, that the animals only felt the slightest of
pain or emotion.

With the advent of technology, however, it’s completely possible to

conduct research without harming animals and leaving them be. At this
time, technology is so advanced that we can use vitro and organ-on-a-
chip models. Not only that, people are also becoming more open to
participating in researches for the greater good that they are willing to
volunteer themselves as subjects.

We, humans, are no Gods to forsake animals their freedom to

survive and unnecessarily inflict emotional and physical pain on them,
much more to sample animals for the purposes that are self-serving (like
shampoo, make-ups, etc. research). These acts are inhumane and doing
so must result in serious consequences and must be punishable by law.
It’s cruel, detrimental, and unnecessary.
 We all know that animals regularly go through phases that are
unsavory which may cause them harm and demise (thanks to their
natural instincts to survive), like preying or getting away from the
predator. On the contrary, animal researchers take them away from their
natural habitat or breed them in laboratories which (1) halts the chain
process; (2) destroys the animals’ natural instincts which may cause
them serious harm when they are freed again (if this ever happens); and
(3) violates them as they were not given the option of not participating
(British Broadcasting Corporation, n.d.).

You might be wondering why the issue of animal testing has been a
moral dilemma in the research field from then ‘til now. How far have
humans used animals for research and to what extent have researchers
put these animals in cruel states? The answers to these are not for the
faint of heart. Let’s put it this way, an animal test is any test directed
where a live creature is compelled to experience practices that will harm
them. They ordinarily bring about unbearable agony, trouble, mental
injury, and death. Animal tests are restricted to constraining creatures to
be presented to or expend different materials. Analysts have likewise
been trying on creatures for social science for quite a long time (testing
for isolation, separation anxiety, hopelessness, etc). Trials on animals are
uncaring and coldblooded where they (a) compel the creatures to expend;
(b) infuse the animal with conceivably destructive substances; (c) present
animals to painful radiation; (d) constrain animals to breathe in poisonous
gases and synthetic substances; and (e) make alarming and befuddling
circumstances to cause creatures' mental inconvenience (Cruelty-Free
International, n.d.; Humane Society International, 2012).

Needless to say, the pain, distress, and death that these animals
have experienced or suffered from are not worth any potential
advantages to people (Lingel, 2018). The American Veterinary Medial
Association defines animal pain as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional
experience perceived as arising from a specific region of the body and
associated with actual or potential tissue damage” (2020). According to
Orlans, animals feel torment in similar ways that people do to the point
that their responses are actually indistinguishable from that of humans
(1993). When animals are spent on research, they are exposed to
agonizing and lethal trials.

Since animals are not capable of higher thinking, they can’t express
their inclinations and decisions whether they would want to take part in
researches (The Body Shop, 1993). Hence, researchers inexcusably
extend their logical reasoning by making the choice for them. When
people choose the destiny of creatures in research situations, the animal's
privileges are removed with no idea of their prosperity or the nature of
their lives. Hence, animal experimentation ought to be halted because it
abuses the privileges of creatures.

We, as a whole, know in the present age that there are various
alternatives to combat animal testing which are all the more undeniably
less expensive, faster, and more viable (Lingel, 2018). We, as students,
simply don't comprehend why numerous scientists will, at present, utilize
animals as trials even though they know there are a lot more successful
other options which we will talk about one-by-one.

First is Vitro Models which utilizes human cells for testing as

opposed to living animals. Through this, analysts are able to test items,
drugs, and cosmetics without engaging in animal cruelty. More than that,
this is seen as a better approach with results that are more compelling as
it uses actual human cells which will tell us the exact effect of the product
to humans (Cruelty-Free International, n.d.).

Because humans are becoming more open to the idea of research,

the second best option is to utilize human volunteers. This testing can
undoubtedly dispose off animal testing in clinical and lab settings.
Individuals are more than ready to help discover solutions for any
ailments and to add information about the human body. Again, as we’ve
been mentioning again and again, people have the opportunity and ability
to decide to get involved in the research and likewise withdraw their
participation at any given point in the research duration as well as
comprehend why the testing is occurring and give their insights about it
(PETA, 2020).

Finally, analysts also have the option of using an organ-on-a-chip

model. What is so unique about the chip is that with microfluidic
chambers permit the cell to develop and upkeep. The chip controls the
physical condition of cells. The chips permit subatomic and utilitarian
observing of the cells. Simply put, it is a continuous imaging of living cells
(Human Organ and Disease Model Technologies, n.d.).

To a regular Juan who doesn’t understand the gravity of animal

testing and cruelty, this might appear as a minuscule issue. However, a
short research about it is enough to understand that this thing has to
stop. It is barbarous, negative, and pointless. Animal testing ought to
stop because it exposes animals to unnecessary unpleasant or even lethal
experiences that causes them serious mental and/or physical damage or
worst, death. There are now alternatives to conduct research on social
science, cosmetics and drugs that are deemed to produce results that are
more compelling than that of animal testing. It’s completely possible to
advance our knowledge on such areas of discipline while letting the
animals prosper on their own. Everyone, including animals, should be
treated humanely, with respect and dignity. We, humans, will do better
by not tolerating animal savageries for our egotistical concerns.
References

Allen, E. (2017). 9 reasons why experiments on animals must stop.

Metro. Retrieved from https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/
metro.co.uk/2017/04/24/9-reasons-why-experiments-on-animals-
must-stop-6594710/amp/ in October 2020

British Broadcasting Corporation (n.d.). Animal ethics: Experimenting on

animals. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/
using/experiments_1 .shtml in October 2020

Cruelty-Free International (n.d.). Alternatives to animal testing. Retrieved

from https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/
alternatives-animal-testing in October 2020

Cruelty-Free International (n.d.). Arguments against animal testing.

Retrieved from https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-
do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing in October 2020

Cruelty-Free International (n.d.). What is animal testing? Retrieved from

https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-
animal-testing in October 2020

Humane Society International (2012). About animal testing. Retrieved

from https://www.hsi.org/news-media/about/ in October 2020

Lingel, G. (2018). Animal testing is cruel and doesn’t work: Here’s why.
Retrieved from Sentient Media data base
https://sentientmedia.org/animal-testing/ in October 2020

Orlans B.F. (1993). In the name of Science: Issues in responsible animal

experimentation. Bartleby Research. Retrieved from
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Its-Time-to-Stop-Animal-
Research-Testing-P36TWGYTC in October 2020
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (n.d.). Alternatives to animal
testing. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-
for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/ in October 2020

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2017). Cruelty to animals in

laboratories. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-
used-for-experimentation/animals-laboratories/ in October 2020

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2020). Facts and statistics
about animal testing. Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/
issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-
experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/ in
October 2020

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2020). Top five reasons to
stop animal testing. Retrieved from PETA Database
https://www.peta.org/blog/top-five-reasons-stop-animal-testing/ in
October 2020

The Body Shop (1993). Against animal testing. Retrieved from Lonestar
College Database in October 2020