Using animals for laboratory Research

The second group was in like manner opposed to beast look on humane grounds, plainly did not seek the abolition of such re lookup. Instead, these individuals sought to leap the inquiry that was performed to that which was necessary (Dresser 1148). While those opposed to savage research were able to get some relevant legislation passed in the late nineteenth hundred in Great Britain, the linked States movement was less successful. It was not until late in this century that legislative efforts were successful.

One of the greatest problems that opponents of creature research smell is that of the pragmatic achievements of the researchers. For example, researchers could point to the discovery of diphtheria toxin in 1894 and say that it was animal experimentation that made the discovery possible. Although the research opponents attacked on scientific grounds and suggested research alternatives, the scientists were able to cite instances where the intention of animals greatly speeded up central discoveries. A side benefit agnise by the researchers is that because they were coming under attack, the researchers were forced to become more organized in the work and united in reason against the antivivisectionists.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the American public has become increasingly inquisitive of scientific research in general, and that based on animal studies in particular. Nonscientific opponents to research have become skilled in using the media, and in finding financia

Of even greater interest than the wide variety of nonscientists pertain in the debate is the add of scientists now challenging the use of animals. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, a record number of conferences were held regarding the use of animals in research (Dresser 1151). This development is especially important when one considers the amount of influence scientists have wielded in self-abnegation of animal research.

Animal welf ar groups had their first victory in 1979 when they successfully had the New York pound seizure law repealed. Since then, former(a) states and communities have expressly forbidden the use of shelter animals for research.

In 1984, Massachusetts not only repealed the pound seizure law, exactly also prohibited shelters from releasing animals to research facilities or animal dealers. This same law also prohibited research institutions from getting animals from out-of-state shelters.

Faced with decreasing supplies from shelters' animal research organizations began turning to buck private sources. One company, Charles River, realized sales of $41 million in 1982, up from $3.9 million in 1968. One of its ads in the early 1980s boasted that "more than 10 million CF-1s" had been sold in the previous four years (Stevens 41). What alarms animal welf atomic number 18 workers is that CF-1s are not some manufactured product, but rather are mice. Charles River bought Primate Imports, the largest monkey-collecting firm in the country in 1982, and worn out(p) $19 million to upgrade the breeding facilities throughout the world, including Japan, Germany, France and the unite Kingdom. A quote by Primate president total heat Foster illustrates the view of big business:

The replacement, reduction and finis approach used in Sweden refers to three principles used to search for alternatives to animal use:

Reducing the number of animals needed for research also solves the moral problem of raising animals specifically so that they can be used for research. Companie
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.