Why Animal Abuse Is Wrong Essay - Special Academic Support

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The need for animal models and proficient practice by personnel in research are still debatable issues. There are some points in my rapid response that I do support and against.

Firstly, personal religious beliefs or emotions should not interfere researchers decision-making. Researchers are obligated to make decisions rationally based on logical findings. This also applies to the ethical issue that I did not mention in my rapid response, which is Joanna did not conduct the research with rationality. Rationality is the need to take action based on sensible reason. This dilemma did not mention how animals are used in the trial and there is the absence of adequate scientific reasonings for rejecting the usage of animal models. She has to do more deep studies to analyze which methodology is statistically more suitable for chemical agent testing, so experiments can be conducted with minimum harm and productive results are obtainable.

Furthermore, my comment on researchers lacking in ethical education and professionalism was wrong because I learned that several legislations have been implemented such as the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that ensures a standard level of expertise is being fulfilled by researchers. For example, this act stated that a research team must obtain licenses before conducting animal research. These regulations ensure that detailed project editorial policy must be established first and strictly reviewed by the authority. This can reassure that structured experiment is tightly regulated with moral obligation consideration to prevent unnecessary experiment conduction or invasive exploitation of animals.

My rapid response regarding the lack of good handling procedures, leading to a shortage of food supplies and the occurrence of animal abuse was wrong because the dilemma did not mention why the trial using nonhuman animals is not conducted due to those reasons. According to the Animal Welfare Act 2016, procedures in handling animals like providing adequate food and a suitable living environment are primary criteria that must be met by a research team to produce good animal models. This practice aids in inducing better performances by animals concurrently and can reinforce the role of personnel in maintaining animals mental and physical health. Inspections conducted by authorities can ensure no mistreatment issues occur as the prosecution will be given to the license holder for any offenses.

I support my initial comment on animal replacement using human cell culture because this dilemma did not mention that cell assay is not suitable for chemical agent toxicity testing. Pre-screening using human tissues can be considered first before proceeding to animal trials as it provides accurate predictions of the agents effect on humans. Animals are not physiologically similar to us, many trials failed to produce the desired effect on humans despite being successful in animals, leading to waste of time and money. In my opinion, animal involvement in this trial is not necessary because of the worlds advanced evolution in technology, discoveries of alternatives that can produce statistically similar and valid results have increased. Therefore, strategic alternative options should be explored first, allowing the achievement of outcomes with the greatest benefits.

Public awareness and acceptance of protecting animals rights have increased as numerous organizations have sought to strengthen the policy of animal research by advocating the importance of implementing the three Rs (3Rs)-replacement, reduction, and refinement. Refinement encourages researchers to train animals to induce desired performance rather than forcing animals to perform trials against their natural ability. This approach can greatly reduce invasive procedures and support the non-maleficence principle. Reduction aids in minimizing the number of animals used per experiment. This technique ensures researchers implement the theory of beneficence by prioritizing their responsibility to well-designed an experiment and obtain the best practice to alleviate the need for multiple models. Replacement is to seek alternative methods to replace or eliminate the need for vertebrates. Many successful findings only involve in-vitro techniques yet produce high-precision data, such as using three-dimensional cell models that mimic the function of real human organs in the body system. This scientifically suggests that the need for animal models is not mandatory in all trials.

In conclusion, I agree that animal usage in this dilemma is needed only if other options are impossible. It must be conducted with ethical principles and 3Rs implementation. I agree that using animal models in trials is beneficial because it has benefited both humans and animals for decades in disease and drug treatment discovery. In unison, ideas of complete animals replacement by other alternatives are still not solid enough as there is room for improvement and high possibilities for improvement to increase animal rights. Therefore, researchers are responsible for conducting research and developing more reliable alternatives that emphasize accuracy, consequentialism, and reproducibility.

Click Here To Order Now!