Outline

Intro:

T.S : It is unreasonable to kill a living thing for the sake of another.

1st Body: However, the anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between people and
animals make animals poor models for human beings
2nd Body: Although researchers see these animals as not suffering beings, they experience
lots of suffering
3rd Body: While Scientists defend animal testing in medical research for human health,
millions of animals are slaughtered every year just to look better
Conclusion: Taking the life of a living being for the sake of another is unacceptable in terms
of ethical standards.
 Animal Abuse
People generally assume that because animals can not speak for themselves, they can
not feel any pain. For this reason, they remain silent in the face of cruelty and torture to
animals. Animals are being wasted by researchers and cosmetic companies all over the
world. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In The Name Of
Science, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and
product-safety testing (62). Micheal Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at
biotech company MatTek, stated, ‘’We can now create a model from human skin cells --
keratinocytes – and produce normally. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells –
melanocytes -- to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different
ethnicities. You can not do that on a mouse or rabbit. ‘’ So why do animals have to die? It is
unreasonable to kill a living thing for the sake of another.
Researchers often think that animals and people are very similar. Therefore, they use
animals as a subject. However, the anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between
people and animals make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of
Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states ‘’It’s very hard to create an animal
model that even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human.’’ And these
results are unreliable. For instance, in the 1950s sleeping pill, thalidomide, which caused
10.000 babies to be born with deformities, was tested on animals before its commercial
release. (Britannica PROCON)
In 1970, Richard Ryder coined ‘’speciesism’’. This term is privileging one’s species without
any moral justification. Specialists discourse allows researchers to see the animals they are
testing with as any laboratory material, not as sentient or suffering beings. Those who make
experiments on animals can also prepare their regulation and add the word ‘’ethics’’ to
them. It’s generally thought that only human beings deserve full moral consideration, which
amounts to speciesism. Often, it is considered acceptable to harm animals if it will bring
some benefit to humans – no matter how small. But they disregard ‘’animal ethics’’. Animal
ethics is to ensure that animals live comfortably and are protected against pain, suffering,
and torture in the best possible way and to prevent all kinds of victimization. Although
researchers see these animals as not suffering beings, they experience lots of suffering.
Therefore, using them for people is unethical even in that aspect alone. For instance, in burn
experimentation, gradual burns are created on animals’ skin with chemicals. At the end of
the experimentation, these animals can not continue their life as beforehand (Animal Ethics).
While Scientists defend animal testing in medical research for human health, millions of
animals are slaughtered every year just to look better. For instance, American women use an
average of 12 personal cosmetic products per day, so product safety is important. But these
products are not essential. According to PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals),
most popular brands pay for tests on animals such as Maybelline, NARS, and BOBBİ BROWN.
The National Institutes of Health reports that 95 out of every 100 brands that pass animal
tests fail in humans (PETA). For such a small statistic, methods other than taking lives should
be used or not be tested at all. It is absurd to kill %95 animals that breathe and feel just like
humans, in order not to put people at risk. In a documentary, Earthlings, which reveals the
torture of animals used for scientific experiments, clothes, food, entertainment and
subjected to all possible cruelty Shaun Manson says: ‘’At the end of these killings, there are
pain and blood. Not intelligence, not power, not social class, or civil rights. We are all alive
and animals feel just like us. When they are used for people’s looking, they’re suffering for
nothing that is of no benefit to humanity.’’
In conclusion, taking the life of a living being for the sake of another is unacceptable in
terms of ethical standards. We shouldn’t bother animals just because they can not speak for
themselves. Now, alternative testing methods exist that can replace the need for animals.
For instance, vitro testing ( tests carried on human cells or tissue) offers opportunities to
reduce or replace animal testing. Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the
possibility for tissue bioprinting. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available
products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test
tubes or plastic wells. They can produce more useful results than testing products on an
animal skin.

Edanur Gergin 210907076

References
Discrimination and exploitation. (2021). Animal Ethics. Retrieved From :
https://www.animal-ethics.org/speciesism/
F. Barbara Orlans. (1993). In The Name Of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal
Experimentation. Retrieved from:
https://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm#:~:text=The%20harm%20that
%20is%20committed,testing%20product%20toxicity%20are%20available.
Horta, O. (2010). What is speciesism?, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23,
pp. 243-266
Manson, S. (2004). Earthlings. Retrieved From:
https://hayvanlarinaynasinda.wordpress.com/2021/03/17/zulmun-artsin-ey-insan-
hayvanlar-uzerinde-yapilan-deneyler/
Sapontzis, S. F. (1990). The meaning of speciesism and the forms of animal
suffering, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, pp. 35-36.
Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing? (2020, Mar. 8). Britannica ProCon.
Retrieved from: https://animal-testing.procon.org/

These beauty brands that still test on animals. PETA. Retrieved from:
https://www.peta.org/living/personal-care-fashion/beauty-brands-that-you-thought-
were-cruelty-free-but-arent/