is animal experimentation wrong?!

Anything that causes living creatures unnecessary pain is wrong. When I was in my early 20's I made friends with a cow. I was in this Buddhist retreat out in Arizona for about a year, there were about ten of us living isolated from each other in our own individual yurts. My yurt happened to be located right next to this open range for cattle. The only living thing I saw for about three months was this brown and white cow that I called Missy. She would come around every so often and stand on the other side of the fence, curious to see what scraps of my breakfast I might bring out for her. We bonded.

So one day she comes by with this little calf, that had a red tag on it's ear that simply read "Terminate". It was such a heartbreak for me to see this sweet little calf and it's mother who looked so proud of it, knowing what pain was awaiting them. After a couple of weeks, Missy came back alone and she didn't want any of the food I offered her. She just came by the fence and began banging her head against the post. I don't think I've ever cried so hard in my life. Animals feel pain and loss and fear. It's not right to make anything in this world suffer for nothing, certainly not right to make them suffer for your own gain.

To state something as wrong, you would need to define the parameters for which make a determination. Simply stating something is wrong, because you "feel" that way has little persuasive power toward those who do not agree with your feelings.
On which categories are animal experimentation to be scrutinized? 1) Based on the "feelings" of the animals? 2) Technology that exist to avoid a type of animal experimentation? 3) Do animals have all and exactly the same rights as a human being? 4) Weighing the value of the experiment to the value of human and animal life?
Is it ok to deny animal experimentation knowing that it could mean the death of a human being? What if that human was someone that you knew? Are you willing to give up your life if you knew that something you benefit from resulted in the death of an animal?
I only ask these questions because you seem to have made up you mind without addressing these issues. This is not a simple answer. If I had it my way, no animal would needlessly die, however, this world is far from existing in that state. Life dies and sometimes death brings life. It is a cycle. I wish for no life to suffer but accept that death does occur. Would you have the same passion for death of an embryo from abortion or harvesting for stem cell research. The same questions would apply. I do not have concrete answers either, but will always ask as many questions about all conditions. Good luck in you paper.

From an ethical perspective, animal experimentation is indefensible. I don't know how old you are, or how much information your essay needs, but the things done to animals in the name of science is nightmarish. There is literally nothing that is deemed "too cruel", both physically and psychologically. From chemicals dripped into rabbits' eyes, to the Draize Test (where a patch of skin is shaved and a chemical is applied to the area and reapplied over several days or weeks, until the skin is ulcerated and weeping), to monkeys being deliberately brain-damaged, to force-feeding substances until half the animals have died from it (known as LD50 tests): the variation in torture is astounding.

From a scientific point of view, animal testing is fairly worthless. People will try to tell you that it's a "necessary evil", that without it countless humans would die, we wouldn't have drugs such as insulin, and if you're against it you're some sort of psychopath who cares more about rats than human babies. Since animals have vastly different biological systems, that's all b*llocks. Even among individual humans there are a lot of different reactions to the same thing. For example, some people can die if they are given a drug as commonplace as Paracetamol. Thousands of people are hospitalised each year due to Adverse Drug Reactions: that is, they were given a drug that was supposed to help them, but instead they had a bad reaction to it.

Considering this, it is unbelievable that people actually think they can get a good idea of a human's reaction to a drug by seeing what happens if they first test that drug on an animal of a different species, whether it be a mouse, a dog, a monkey or a pig. For example, Thalidomide, a drug developed to help alleviate morning sickness in pregnant women, was tested on animals and deemed safe. When it caused horrendous birth defects in humans, the drug company was cleared of responsibility because they'd tested Thalidomide on animals first and so it wasn't their fault the animal tests didn't give an accurate result for humans. There are countless other examples, such as Vioxx, a drug for heart conditions which passed safe for animals but proved lethal in clinical trials with human volunteers. And it works the other way, too: if we relied on the efficacy of animal tests we wouldn't have aspirin - it's lethal to dogs, after all. Who knows how many potentially beneficial medecines have never got past the animal testing stage because different animals have different reactions?

With this in mind, it can be argued that vivisection actually harms humans and delays medical breakthroughs. There are plenty of methods of testing substances which don't use animals, from tissue cultures to sophisticated computer models, which can be cheaper and certainly have more reliable results. However, pharmaceutical companies prefer testing their drugs on animals as they can pick and choose which species they test on and which results they publish. Scientists who have spent their entire adult lives doing things a certain way and being taught that what they do is how things are done, do not now want to be told to make changes. It would mean starting again from the beginning instead of being top of their field, or admitting that they've been wrong in the past and changing how they think. There is a lot of money in maintaining the status quo.

I've included some websites in the "sources" section which hopefully will have all the information you (or anyone else!) need to learn a bit more about the subject.

http://www.drhadwentrust.org/ an excellent organisation that concentrates on alternatives to vivisection. Great for the scientific stuff.
http://www.buav.org/ Good all-round site on vivisection, very informative.
http://www.pcrm.org/ Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine

Yes it is. It isnt right to inflict pain on animals for any reason. There are many alternatives to animal testing.

Many people have died and been injured due to taking drugs tested on animals.

Vivisectors only care about money, not "saving human lifes" and they'll torture and kill any animal to get it while lying to the public.

Thankfully many people are now turning against animal testing and boycotting companies that test on animals.

I personally think animal experimentation is wrong, on both moral and scientific grounds.

Morally, it is often extremely cruel and completely unnecessary - for example, I once saw some undercover footage from a laboratory in which dogs were being force-fed weedkiller which had already been tested on humans. The dogs were given 50 times what had been established as a dangerous dose for humans - what possible reason could there have been for this? The 'scientists' involved were clearly either seriously lacking in training or were just plain idiots, because one of them accidentally inserted the tube delivering the weedkiller into the dog's trachea rather than its oesophagus, filling its lungs with fluid. Barbaric.

Scientifically, testing things on animals is unreliable and potentially dangerous. Animals react differently to humans to many substances, rendering many tests pointless. For example, a contraceptive called Tamoxifen was once developed which was tested on rats. It worked as intended, and was given to humans. However, it had the opposite effect on women, actually increasing their fertility!

There are many other examples, some of which had much more harmful consequences. I don't know if you remember it, but a couple of years ago a drug called TGN1412 was tested on some human volunteers, and very nearly killed them - they were on life support for some time, and were left with permanent health problems. Prior to being given to these people, this drug had already been tested on monkeys at a dose 500 times stronger than that which was given to the humans, without causing the monkeys any ill effects. Aspirin causes birth defects in cats. Penicillin kills guinea pigs. 6-azauridine, a cancer drug which can be used in humans for long periods, will kill dogs in a few days in even small doses. The list goes on.

I realize that some people feel that animal testing is necessary and that the end justifies the means - these people are entitled to their opinion, but I do not share it, personally. I don't think a human's life should be considered more important than a dog's or a rat's or a monkey's - animals have just as much right to live as we do, and the right to live that life free of pain and misery. As noted philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it, the central question is not "Can they reason?" nor "Can they talk?", but "Can they suffer?" And obviously they can. Our greater intelligence gives us a responsibility to protect other species, not the right to use and abuse them for our own ends.

I'm kind of in the middle about it. A lot of very important medical research and break throughs would not have been possible without it. It literally saves human lives. On the flip side I am completely against it being used on frivolous things like hair products or make-up, and I won't buy products that do.

Yes it is wrong. There are many alternatives to it. Things that work on animals do not necessarily work on humans, sometimes with severe consequences. I agree with you that animals have the right not to be used this way; they feel pain like any human would.

It depends what it is. If it is make up I don't agree with it and I won't buy make up if it has been tested on animals but if it is medicines/tablets I don't mind because we have to know if tablets are safe or not.

Pescetarian

The only rights animals have are the ones humans give them. Who labels a species as "protected"? Humans. Who defends protected species? Humans. All YOU animal rights people want to do is take away MY rights in regard to my animals. And they are mine. I bought them, I feed them, I take care of them. Not you nor any other animal species.

Yes, I support animal experimentation. Animal testing has given us a longer, healthier life. You probably don't remember the child-crippling disease, Polio. You should do some research and find out how devastating it was to children and their parents back then. Animal testing was very important in defeating that disease and it's only one of many. Even Mary Beth Sweetman, of PETA, uses insulin made from animals. And it was surely tested on animals before she was able to use it.

As for testing beauty products: I rather see a sweet little Beagle harmed than a three year old child when it gets mom's lipstick out of her purse. Or a cute monkey hurt than a three year old child when it gets a cleaning product from under the cabinet when the cabinet lock fails. I'll bet if it were your three year old brother/sister/child, you'd feel the same.

That is a matter of opinion.