[리서치 페이퍼 샘플] The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Final Research Essay Sample - by homeworkvan

안녕하세요 :)

오늘은 리서치 페이퍼 혹은 리서치 에세이에 대해서 포스팅 해드려요!
거의 대부분의 영어권 대학에서 자주 등장하는 에세이 과제로, 리서치 페이퍼는 필수이세요~!
English 수업을 제외하고도, psychology, sociology, economic 등등 리서치 페이퍼는 정말 많이 접하실거에요~
리서치 페이퍼에서 제일 중요한 부분은 어떤 소스를 이용을 하냐일것같아요~!
그래서 토픽을 정하실때도 퀄리티가 높은 좋은 자료가 많은 토픽을 정하시는게 유리하세요~
보통 그런 자료들을 scholar sources 혹은 peer-reviewed 자료라고 불려져요~
이러한 검증된 자료를 기반으로 리서치 페이퍼를 작성하셔야 점수를 잘 받으실수있으니 참고하시면 좋을것같아요 :)

아무쪼록, 저희는 어떤식으로 리서치 페이퍼를 작성했는지 샘플 확인해보시고, 궁금하신 사항있으시면 언제든지 저희 이메일로 문의 부탁드릴게요 :)

그럼 타지에서 유학하시는 모든 분들이 저희 리서치 에세이 샘플 보시고 도움 많이 되셨으면 좋겠어요!

감사합니다! :)

REASERCH ESSAY SAMPLE

The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Final Essay

Animal testing refers to the practice of conducting experimental projects on animals prior to human clinical trials to examine the toxicity, dosage, and efficacy of pharmaceutical products (Sepahban, 2015). For decades, animal testing to check the safety of human drugs has been in practice despite the contentious debate as to whether the practice is ethical.  On the one hand, proponents of animal testing posit that mainly the practice has enabled the development of vital life-saving drugs for humans and animals. On the other hand, opponents of animal testing opine that the practice is cruel on animals and that alternatives to animal testing exist (Akhtar, 2015). While concerns regarding the cruelty of animal testing are valid, animal testing has historically reduced the impact of deadly diseases necessitated by the complexity of anatomy and physiological aspects that leaves no adequate alternatives to save for the more inhumane experimentation on human beings.

Historically, the practice of animal testing has contributed to the development of life-saving drugs and treatments; without which humanity would still be batting severe illnesses. Franco (2013) asserts that animal testing has led to many scientific and medical breakthroughs in the past century such as blood transfusions, organ transplants, and vaccinations that have resulted to a better quality of life for humans. Experiments on animals are crucial to advancing biomedical knowledge, which helps to understand how drugs would work on human beings. Testing on animals has allowed scientists to identify side effects of medications before humans can use them. Additionally, animal testing also helps to evaluate the efficacy of drugs, and therefore determine their utility in treating human disease. This process therefore enables the development of drugs that are both safe and effective. The development of vaccines, one of the most significant advances in disease prevention and eradication, was aided in large part by animal testing (Botting, 2015). Testing on animals led to the development of vaccines against diseases such as smallpox, diphtheria and tetanus. Additionally, animal testing was crucial in the development of antibiotics; drastically reducing mortality due to infectious illnesses that in turn contributed to the population boom the world has experienced. Furthermore, the development of insulin revolutionized the treatment of diabetes; and this procedure was first isolated from animals (Botting, 2015). Animal testing has further enabled the development of more sophisticated forms of treatments such as cardiac pacemakers and organ transplants. These advances in medical treatment would not be possible without animal testing.

The argument against animal testing fails to recognize that there are no adequate alternatives to testing experimental cures and treatments on a living, whole body system. Humans and animals are similar in many anatomical and physiological aspects; and it would be difficult to accomplish the needed experimental therapeutic studies without using animals (Hajar, 2011). One, human anatomy and animal anatomy are both incredibly complicated for cell cultures in petri dishes to be used as alternatives. Drug behavior is not similar in cell cultures as within a living system, mainly due to the effects of metabolizing body organs such as the liver (Katzung & Trevor, 2016). As a result, a cell culture method is therefore inadequate to yield complete and relevant information; and cannot be solely relied on during drug experimentation. Additionally, In-vitro or cellular techniques also lack scientific validation and standardization (Mak, Evaniew, & Ghert, 2014); hence, they are not a viable alternative to conventional animal testing. Some opponents of animal testing have proposed the use of less sophisticated organisms due to their potential lack of a well-developed nervous system that increases the capacity to suffer and feel pain. However, even the use of less complex organisms faces drawbacks such as their lack of an immune system; making it difficult to carry out certain types of research such as vaccine studies. Therefore, the complexity of drug testing and the lack of a viable alternative makes animal testing a necessity in realizing future medical breakthroughs.

If animal testing is abolished, the only other physiological alternative is conducting experimental tests on humans, which is much worse. Incidents such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or the Nazi medical experiments reveal the inhumane and unethical reaches of human testing and the long-lasting consequences involved. Abandoning animal testing in favor of human testing would expose people to the dangerous effects of medicines in the preclinical stages of drug testing. In particular, toxicology tests that are essential to hazard and risk assessment cannot be carried out on human subjects as they would be dangerous for human health (Klitzman, 2015). Human testing would lead to mutagenic, teratogenic and carcinogenic effects of drugs, as well as other adverse general toxic effects on the human body. This impact not only makes human testing impractical, but it would also be unethical to expose human beings to the dangers associated with drug testing. At the same time, computer models or simulations are still currently far from being reliable to provide accurate information about the efficacy and side effects of experimental drugs on humans. Computer-based methods are used to provide information about drug absorption, to model diseases such as asthma, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as to evaluate drug toxicity (Doke & Dhawale, 2016). These models aim to predict relationships of drug interaction within the body; however, the information they provide is statistical and the results do not adequately capture the complexity of biological systems. Therefore, computer models cannot accurately predict human reactions to drugs; and such tests will still require additional animal or human testing. Other techniques such as microdosing, which has been proposed as a new technique to reduce animal testing by measuring how small doses of drugs move within the body, also have limitations as they cannot predict toxicity at higher doses (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). As such, the current alternatives to animal testing have not developed to a level that is reliable enough to provide conclusive evidence on the effects of drugs on the human body.  Animal testing therefore remains as the most appropriate solution for drug experimentation; and abandoning it for less effective alternatives would be an unrealistic endeavor.

Additionally, modern regulations have ensured that animal testing is performed with the ethical consideration for animals. Today, moral scientists attempt as much as possible to protect animals by not using animals or not inflicting pain where possible. According to Ferdowsian and Beck (2011), it is widely acknowledged among the scientific community that animals can experience pain and distress. As a result, scientists have modified experimentation to apply ethical measures such as te use of anaesthetic and analgesic agents to assist in reducing the impact of suffering experienced by animals. Other refinement techniques include improvement of animal housing to satisfy the physiological needs of animals and therefore improve their well-being (Franco, 2013). Where possible, animal testing is also conducted using noninvasive procedures by applying good animal welfare and humane science (Festing & Wilkinson, 2007). Scientists design methodologically sound research procedures whereby the method of administration and the effects of the drug on the animal are taken into account. This move is intended to reduce undue harm to the animal. Moreover, scientists operate under various legal controls for protecting animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (Sepahban, 2015). These restrictions not only ensure that the use of animals is justified, they also promote fair treatment of animals during the research process.  Regulatory measures and legislation put in place by many countries, including the United States, help to ensure that animal testing is in line with ethical considerations.

However, opponents of animal testing argue that the practice is cruel and inhumane, and for some animal rights groups, the practice should therefore be abolished altogether. Animal rights groups and animal protection activists criticize the method of animal testing, citing that animals are subjected to unnecessarily painful procedures (Akhtar, 2015). The argument follows that from an ethical standpoint, all animals have a right to exist and not to be subjected to unnecessary pain in the name of scientific research. Also, it is common practice to euthanize animals used in testing after they have served their purpose under various medical procedures during their period in captivity. While it is expected that this killing should be done in a manner that does not subject animals to additional pain, animal rights group readily find evidence of animals subjected to death that in some cases can be considered to be cruel (Cressey, 2013). On the other hand, some opponents of animal testing oppose the practice on the grounds that no animal should be placed in captivity.  Additionally, while regulations exist to protect animal welfare, animal rights groups argue that these regulations fail to protect the animals most used for experimentation such as mice, rats, and frogs which constitute 80-95 percent of  animals that are experimented upon (American Psychological Association, 2002). These arguments by opponents question the ethicality of the practice on various grounds.

As a rebuttal, while these concerns are valid, it would not be reasonable to abolish animal testing altogether as it has significant benefits for human health. Complete and immediate abolishment of animal testing would have enormous and severe consequences for scientific research of cures and treatments; as it will hamper the development of medicines and medical devices. In the past century, incidents involving the release of drugs that had not undergone animal testing led to mass adverse effects, including deaths of hundreds of people. According to Hajar (2011), these incidents illustrate human harm due to use of substances that have not been tested on humans, and underlie the importance of human experimentation to avert or prevent human tragedy. Moreover, there should be a middle ground for how animal testing should be conducted (Ferdowsian & Beck, 2011). The purpose and benefits of testing should be considered, all while ensuring high standards of human welfare and considering alternatives where possible. In vitro testing does provide insights into an experimental cure or treatment but it is an inadequate procedure as far as the effects of the remedy on the human body are concerned (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). Alternative methods are therefore useful for understanding the model of disease or treatment but cannot replace animal testing.

With the need to develop cures and treatments for human and animal ailments, the lack of more effective alternatives due to the complexity of anatomy and physiology, and the ethics of human experimentation makes the argument for animal testing morally and ethically justified. Historically, animal testing has been beneficial to human health and it would pose a significant danger to medical research and public health if the practice is abandoned. This move would not only set back drug development, it would also harm human health by exposing human beings to unsafe drugs.  Nevertheless, stakeholders should work towards reducing the number and suffering of animals in research. Responsible use of animals in scientific research has benefits for both human health and animal welfare. Ethical animal testing through the use of the 3Rs; replacement of animals with non-living models, reduction in use of animals and refinement of animal use practices; is necessary for advancement in drug discovery, and helps to uphold the moral responsibility of humane animal treatment.

References

American Psychological Association (2002). Rats, mice and birds excluded from Animal Welfare Act. Monitor on Psychology, 33(7), 14.

Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(04), 407-419. doi:10.1017/s0963180115000079

Botting, J. (2015). Animals and medicine: The contribution of animal experiments to the control of disease. Open Book Publishers.

Cressey, D. (2013). Best way to kill lab animals sought. Nature, 500, 130–131. doi:10.1038/500130a

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

Ferdowsian, H., & Beck, N. (2011). Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and research. Plos ONE, 6(9), e24059. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024059

Festing, S., & Wilkinson, R. (2007). The ethics of animal research: Talking point on the use of animals in scientific research. EMBO Reports, 8(6), 526-530. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400993

Franco, N. (2013). Animal experiments in biomedical research: A historical perspective. Animals, 3(1), 238-273. doi:10.3390/ani3010238

Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. Heart Views, 12(1), 42. doi:10.4103/1995-705x.81548

Katzung, B. G. & Trevor, A. J. (2016). Basic & clinical pharmacology. McGraw-Hill Medical.

Klitzman, R. (2015). The ethics police?: the struggle to make human research safe. Oxford University Press.

Mak, I. W., Evaniew, N., & Ghert, M. (2014). Lost in translation: Animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment. American journal of translational research, 6(2), 114.

Sepahban, L. (2015). Animal testing: Life-saving research vs. animal welfare. Capstone. 

=========================================================

The following is PLAGIARISM REPORT for 'The Moral Grounding of Animal Testing: Final Research Essay Sample - by homeworkvan'.

COPYRIGHT © 2018. All Rights Reserved by homeworkvan.

죄송합니다. 다른 과제들때문에 업데이트가 늦었습니다.

Plagiarism 부분이 11%인 이유는 Heading Title때문에 3% 더 높게 나온 결과이고, 실직적으로는 8% 미만이며, Plagiarism 걸린부분은 모두 in-text Citation 을 포함하였기때문에 Plagiarism에 걸릴 이유가 없으니 전혀 걱정 안하셔도 되십니다.