Month: April 2019
Do Stereotypes Use Framing Effects?
Standard living with media or Stereotypes using Framing effects?
Picture yourself in a situation. You are given two choices and you must choose one. Situation A: You won a lifelong vacation. No stress. No work. All you should do is spend your days the way you want to. Situation B: Like A, you receive a vacation as well. This vacation though, is not as fabulous as the one prior and it is a little more crowded. But you can still spend it as you wish and it is free. Naturally, the choice most people would go for is A. While both instances offer a lifelong retreat, B has its setbacks. It's limited and mentioned a lot of the cons to the vacation, such as being crowded, uncomfortable and lower quality than A. Even though, both are get-away trips, Situation A, however, shows no flaws. Like Situation B, it could have its downfalls too but the problems were not addressed up front. For all the readers know, Situation A could be as bad, if not worse than Situation B. But most would not realize it because of how fascinating it sounds. Stress free with no responsibilities. Media framing works the same way. Framing is summed up as a judgement or opinion about something based on how it's presented to an audience. It is effective at catching the audience attention, whether it promotes good or bad impressions of ideas and people. Which brings up a question I had for a while, while are people, like the working and lower middle class are shown so negatively in the media? Often portrayed as uneducated and foolish in sitcoms and in the background on the news, it seems like the sole purpose of the working-class character is to provide laughs. The stereotypes have been around for decades and is slowly showing signs of ceasing. By using stereotypes and social framing, the media not only promotes close minded labels but also adds to the negative stereotypes of the lower classes all while marketing merchandise and unnecessary luxury items.
Today, the media is the primary source of information we collect. With computers, TV, smartphones and tablets, available to us, we know the most current events and see the latest trends with ease. Even author, Diana Kendall addresses how the media plays a vital role in society. In the excerpt, Framing Class, Vicarious living and Conspicuous Consumption. Kendall states that the media is so much a part of our culture, that it, simply does not mirror society, rather, they help to shape it and to create cultural perception.[1] (Kendall, 316) With so many ways to communicate along with the many ways to receive knowledge, faming has found its way into the media.
But why is it so important? Sure, it can be seen in ads, newspapers, the internet and tv but why should we need to be aware of it? Framing is important to know because it determines how information is presented to us. It is a view someone else has that they share with others. And the person or people with the view wants as many people to listen and agree with it as possible. Whether the view or idea should be respected or accepted is completely left up to the audience.
Because framing is an effective tool used by the media, could there be bias in the things we watch? The answer is yes. Framing can be problematic because television ads often use it to manipulative the viewers. Often narratives are framed one way, the way the media wants us to see them. Because of this, we are only given small pieces of the story and not the whole thing. In an article written by Marsha Richins, a professor in the Department of Marketing at the University of Missouri, she gives an example of media selection. This one was a commercial for United airlines. The lead character is an attractive working mother, balancing work and taking care of her daughter. She, drops her daughter off at day care, flies to a business meeting, and returns at the end of the day in time to pick up her smiling, delighted daughter[2]. Richins noted that the boring things in the ad were taken out. [3]We don't see this woman brushing her teeth or standing in line to buy a newspaper. Also omitted are the unpleasant things. As far as we know, this woman never has a run in her pantyhose, never has to wait in the rain for a cab, and her daughter never whines. In media, time and space are costly. Including boring or unpleasant aspects of life in a television commercial or program is expensive and in most cases detrimental to the advertiser's or director's goal, so these elements are omitted. But the resulting image depicts an idealized version of life that isn't achieved even by the most fortunate members of society. [4] Framing could also divide people, not only by appearance and preferences, but also by social class.
Kendall's book explains this theory. One argument she makes is that the media forces society's ideals on everyday people. The upper-class are often praised for their wealth and prosperity. Seeing their luxury and how amazing their lives are, we wished ours could be the same. The perceptions they force on us Kendall informs, blur the line of reality and what is not real encourages people to emulate the upper class and shun the working class and poor[5] (Kendall, 317) It sounds crazy but it is a great example of how powerful marketing is. You are being targeted without realizing it and they will not bluntly admit what they want you to do but instead send messages through advertisement. From seeing the ads and hearing other's opinions and as well as listening to our own, we then make our decision.
These class bias can lead to many stereotypes and prejudging. And from what I've seen on TV, the working class gets the worst of it. Class dismissed, a documentary based on a book with the same titled by Pepi Leistyna, goes against many of the tv stereotypes of the working class thought out the history. According to the video, the working class are portrayed as foolish because tv wants you to believe, workers' inadequacies are to blame for their lack of advancement.[6] In other words, it is your fault you are where you are. Because tv frames the idea that anybody can, achieve success[7] with two simple ingredients: passion and hard-work[8] many people ignore the fact that, most of the time, things that happen to us is beyond our control. Some decisions are based on our choices but not everyone of them. It's unfair to say everyone's circumstances are the same and it comes off very insensitive and narrow-minded.
Having this framed mindset, teaches us to be displeased with ourselves and to seek fortune. It makes us think that our lives would be incomplete without the latest designer clothes and shoes. Americans find themselves overspending on name brands and expensive cars. Kendall states the framing is associated with rampant consumerism is emulation framing, which suggest that people in all classes should reward themselves with a few of the perks of the wealthy[9] Using phycological manipulation, companies trick consumers by exposing their insecurities and offering their products as a solution to them. Unfortunately, the products do not solve consumer problems, but instead puts them in debt because of constant spending. All while businesses are making profits.
In conclusion, framing has proved to be a powerful device and highly effective. It shapes the way we think without us even realizing it. The framing effect can be found everywhere: newspapers, media, tv, ads etc. Because of its influence, the media has been using it for years to persuade us to buy products. Since its used often can it be misleading? By using social framing, the media not only encourages close minded views but also adds to the negative stereotypes of the lower classes, while endorsing spending and gaining profit from unaware consumers.
Works Cited
- Kendall, Diana Elizabeth. 2005. Framing class: media representations of wealth and poverty in America. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- Leistyna, Pepi, Loretta Alper, and Edward Asner. 2005. Class dismissed: how TV frames the working class. [Northampton, MA]: Media Education Foundation. (Video) Director: Loretta Alper - Ed Asner - YouTube – September 26, 2007 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJENf-s6r4
- Marsha L. Richins (1992),"Media Images, Materialism, and What Ought to Be: The Role of Social Comparison", in SV - Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materialism, eds. Floyd W. Rudmin and Marsha Richins, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 202-206. url: https://acrwebsite.org/volumes/12215/volumes/sv08/SV-08
- Stazi, Irene (A.A. 2014/2015) Framing effects in marketing messages. Tesi di Laurea in Behavioural economics and psychology, LUISS Guido Carli, relatore Massimo Egidi, pp. 59. [Bachelor's Degree Thesis] <https://tesi.eprints.luiss.it/15185/1/070912.pdf>
- Hicks, Alexandria. Keeping up with the Jones: Socioeconomic Class Representation in Sitcoms. University of Oregon thesis, School of Journalism and Communication, Honors College, B.A. (2014) <https://hdl.handle.net/1794/18254>
- Diana Elizabeth, Kendall. 2005. Framing class: media representations of wealth and poverty in America. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
- Marsha L. Richins (1992),"Media Images, Materialism, and What Ought to Be: The Role of Social Comparison", in SV - Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materialism, eds. Floyd W. Rudmin and Marsha Richins, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 202-206. url: https://acrwebsite.org/volumes/12215/volumes/sv08/SV-08
- Richins (1992),"Media Images, Materialism, and What Ought to Be: The Role of Social Comparison", in SV - Meaning, Measure, and Morality of Materialism, eds. Floyd W. Rudmin and Marsha Richins, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 202-206. Ibid.
- Kendall. 2005. Framing class: media representations of wealth and poverty in America. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
- Leistyna, Pepi, Loretta Alper, and Edward Asner. 2005. Class dismissed: how TV frames the working class. [Northampton, MA]: Media Education Foundation. (Video) Director: Loretta Alper - Ed Asner - YouTube - September 26, 2007 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJENf-s6r4
- Hicks, Alexandria. Keeping up with the Jones: Socioeconomic Class Representation in Sitcoms. University of Oregon thesis, School of Journalism and Communication, Honors College, B.A. (2014) <https://hdl.handle.net/1794/18254>
- Hicks, Keeping up with the Jones: Socioeconomic Class Representation in Sitcoms. University of Oregon thesis, School of Journalism and Communication, Honors College, B.A. (2014) <https://hdl.handle.net/1794/18254>
- Diana Elizabeth, Kendall. 2005. Framing class: media representations of wealth and poverty in America. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Cite this page
Do Stereotypes Use Framing Effects?. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Testing in Cosmetics
Before a thorough analysis of the public policy can be done, it is important to understand why this topic is a social problem worthy of discussion. Animal testing is defined as, Use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials (Animal Testing). The use of animal testing dates back to the earliest time in history.
The earliest evidence of animal testing is from descriptions of the dissection of live animals in 500 BC from Greek writings. During this time, animals were being used in an attempt to discover the functions of living organisms (Procon). The use of animals in cosmetic testing began in the 1940's as a result of the tipping point in which hundreds of people suffered from serious injuries after being exposed to unsafe beauty products. This was mainly caused by the passing of the U.S. Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FD&C) in 1938, which increased guidelines on the safety of cosmetic products. In reaction to this act, many companies looked to animals in order to test their products and meet the new safety guidelines (National Anti-Vivisection Society).
Beginning in the 2000's, many companies have started to stop using animal testing on their products, largely due to complaints by customers. In 2014, the Humane Cosmetics Act, HR 4148, was introduced by Republican congressman Jim Moran. This bill aims to ensure that animals are not harmed in the manufacturing of cosmetic products, and is the first federal bill to be introduced to prohibit animal testing for cosmetics produced and sold in the United States (The Humane Society). Despite continued widespread support, this bill has not received a hearing on the floor, so no significant progress has been made in the passing of this bill.
There are two sides to this policy debate. One side is that animal testing for cosmetics should be legal, while the other is that animal testing for cosmetics should be banned. On one hand, some believe that animal testing for cosmetics should be legal because it is necessary in order to prove the safety of cosmetic products. Additionally, scientists state that animals are the closest bodies to humans and thus can most effectively produce accurate results on the safety of products. On the other hand, some believe that animal testing for cosmetics should be banned because it is cruel and inhumane.
Those who are against animal testing argue that new technology has been developed and now provides better alternatives to animal testing. In addition, many say that it is unnecessary because an abundant amount of ingredients have already been proven safe to use in cosmetics, so there is no need to continue to test new ingredients. The side that is for animal testing wants to keep the current laws and does not want any new laws to be passed. In contrast, the side that is against animal testing wants to pass new laws to ban animal testing in cosmetics (Procon). This is a social problem because there is an element of harm to thousands of animals who are being used in the testing.
Additionally, it impacts people who do not know each other because people across the world have very strong beliefs on the issue. It has also spanned generations and elicits political action because the government must decide on public policy in order to solve the social problem. Subjectively, many people believe that animal testing is unethical because animals are being tortured for cosmetic gains, while others believe that the testing is necessary for advancement in cosmetic products.
On the other side, objectively, many animals have died of torture while products are being tested on them, but many discoveries have been made with the results. Each year, over 100,000 animals are killed in the United States for cosmetic testing, but thousands of ingredients and new products are being produced as a result of these testings. (Humane Society International). Another objective condition is that many alternatives to animal testing have been created and are proven to be just as effective. For example, when using in-vitro testing, the accuracy of the safety results went from just 60% with animal testing to 80-90% using this alternative method (New England...).
The core value tension represented by the debate over animal testing for cosmetics is law vs. ethics. Law vs. ethics essentially means that the laws that govern the country and the ethical principles that guide one's behavior are not always in harmony. However, these tensions can help to improve the legal system and keep it in line with society's changing ethics (Mckown, 2018). In animal testing for cosmetics specifically, the laws are clear in that there are no bans on animal testing and therefore it is allowed.
However, according to a 2017 Gallup study, 44% of American adults think that animal testing is unethical, which is up significantly from 26% in 2001 (Swetlitz, 2017). This demonstrates the tension between citizens ethical beliefs and the laws that are governing them. As the percentage of Americans against animal testing increases, the laws are likely to move towards animal testing becoming illegal. Animal testing in the cosmetic industry continues to be relevant today through regulations, state laws being passed, and national bills being proposed. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for the enforcement of the FD&C Act to ensure that cosmetics are safe and properly labeled. The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals for testing ingredients for cosmetics, but it also does not ban it. Under the current law, it is up to the cosmetic companies to establish the safety of the ingredients and finished cosmetic product in whichever way they choose (U.S. Food & Drug Administration).
Additionally, on August 24, 1966 the Animal Welfare Act was passed, which is the only Federal law that regulates the treatment of animals in research. This law sets up a minimum acceptable standard of treatment towards animals, but has highly criticized by activist groups against animal testing that it is to lax and not enforced well (United States Department of Agriculture). On August 31, 2018, California passed the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, which banned all beauty products that were tested on animals, or include ingredients tested on animals, by 2020. This makes California the first U.S. state to take this step to end animal testing in cosmetics. This type of legislation has been proposed in numerous states and to Congress, but California is the first state to actually pass a law (Mackenzie, 2018). The major key players involved include the U.S. Congress, who passed the FD&C Act with the FDA being responsible for enforcing the law, and California's State Assembly, as they have passed the Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act. Stakeholders in this issue will be affected both socially and economically by any policy made on animal testing for cosmetics. The stakeholders are cosmetics companies, as this will affect their business, especially the ones who have not already chosen to go cruelty-free.
Animal rights activist groups are also stakeholders because they want to see cruelty-free laws passed in all states, especially in Congress, and also want to see California's law succeed. This social problem is prevalent in the national, state, and local levels of government as they all have the power to pass laws and regulations regarding the use of animal testing in cosmetics. This social problem is in the policy formulation phase because various public policies are being drafted to replace the current laws under the FD&C Act. The issue of animal testing has been around for centuries, with the more specific issue of animal testing in cosmetics being around since the mid-1900's.
This has become a highly debated social problem, with policy proposals on both sides of the issue, but no significant progress has been made. In order to make an educated decision about the proper policy response, it is necessary to understand the depth of the social and economic impacts that each policy proposition for those for and against animal testing would have on society. Social Analysis Now that the social problem and public policy debate has been presented, it is fitting to conduct an analysis of the social implications of animal testing for cosmetics.
Analyzing the issue of animal testing for cosmetics from a sociological perspective is very important because it allows the connections between individual people and the structures of society in which they live in to be evaluated. Applying both the Structural Functionalism Theory and the Conflict Theory is useful in gaining insight on the sociological implications of animal testing for cosmetics. It is also necessary to analyze the social costs and benefits of the policy recommendation on both sides of the issue. To begin a social analysis of animal testing for cosmetics, the Structural Functionalism theory can be applied. Structural Functionalism revolves around the idea of stability. Structural Functionalists view society as stable and well integrated with the social institutions and structures being what is keeping society running (Mckown, 2018).
This means that each social institution plays a role in an individual's socialization and therefore has important contributions to society. Family provides a context for reproducing, nurturing, and socializing children; education offers a way to transmit a society's skills, knowledge, and culture to its youth; politics provides a means of governing members of society; economics provides for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services; and religion provides moral guidance and an outlet for worship of a higher power (Schacht, Knox, and Mooney, 2007).
One social institution in this scenario is the government, as the government is expected to pass laws and regulations in response to social problems, including on the safety of cosmetic products and the standard of testing required. Another social institution is the family and peer groups, as they play a major role in the environment that one grew up in and largely helped to shape the morals and values that an individual holds.
This includes whether or not one thinks it is morally acceptable to test cosmetic products on animals (Shuppli and Ormandy, 2014). Viewing this social problem through social pathology, this issue is caused by a ?sickness' in society, which is caused by issues within the social institutions that lead to improper socialization. In this case, the side that is against the use of animal testing may see the social problem as being caused by improper socialization by family and religion by making it seem as if animal testing is morally just. On the other side, those who are against animal testing for cosmetics may argue that the changing values in the younger generation is a ?sickness' causing the increased arguments against animal testing for cosmetics.
Viewing this as social disorganization, the macroeconomic viewpoint, rapid change in society is causing problems, which could lead to a state of anomie and a loss of social control (Mckown, 2018). A May 2013 Gallup poll found that 56% of Americans say medical testing on animals is morally acceptable (down from 65% in 2001), with 39% saying it is morally wrong (ProCon, 2016). This is likely due to the fact that younger Americans are less likely to support animal testing in general, which is leading to rapid change in society's viewpoints and causing the increase in the percentage of the public that is against animal testing. This social problem can be further analyzed through the application of the Conflict Theory.
The Conflict Theory views society as being characterized by competition and inequality. Theorists believe that society is divided between the dominants (one's who have power) and subordinates (ones without power). The dominant generally want to maintain their power and privilege, either directly or indirectly (McKown, 2018). This applies to the issue of animal testing for cosmetics as the large cosmetic companies are the dominant group, as they have the money and power within the industry. Individual people against animal testing and the animals are a part of the subordinate group, as they have little power. For example, Este Lauder has an estimated 49.05 Billion dollar net worth and is a company that continues to test their products on animals (Macro Trends). Cosmetic companies in the US spend about 16 Billion dollars each year on animal testing, with Este Lauder contributing significantly to that value (Terrance, 2010). Cruelty Free International, the leading non-profit organization working to end animal experimentation, makes significantly less money than these major cosmetic companies like Este Lauder.
The non-marxist approach says that social problems arise due to conflicting values and interests. In this scenario, the social problem of animal testing for cosmetics has arisen because the two sides have very different values: one side values cosmetic advancement and does not see the significance of using animals as test subjects, whereas the other side values animal rights and treating all living beings equally (Shatzman, 2018). These different values demonstrate the inequalities in the debate, as it is clear that the cosmetic companies have more power in their impact when compared to the activist groups against animal testing.
Furthermore, the social costs and benefits of this social problem must be analyzed to fully understand the social implications of animal testing for cosmetics. If the United States Congress passed the Humane Cosmetics Act making animal testing for cosmetics illegal, the manifest social impacts would be that animals would no longer be used in cosmetic testing and the cosmetic industry would become a cruelty-free industry. However, the latent social impacts could be that individuals will no longer be able to purchase products that they have been using for a duration of time and love due to those products containing ingredients that were tested on animals (The Humane Society..., 2015).
On the other hand, if the United States Congress passed a law making animal testing for cosmetics legal, the manifest social impacts would be that the use of cosmetic animal testing would increase. However, the latent social impacts could be that the development of technological alternatives will decrease as their will become less of a push for the innovations (Katsnelson, 2013). In conclusion, thinking like a sociologist allows for the impact of animal testing for cosmetics to be better understood.
First, it is important to understand the application of the Structural Functionalism Theory and and the impacts of the contributions of specific social structure/institutions on society. The Conflict Theory can also be applied, which analyzes the impact of competition and inequality within society between the dominant and subordinate groups. Lastly, the social costs and benefits should be examined in order to have a full understanding of the social implications on both sides of the problem. To further understand animal testing in the cosmetic industry and the best policy for addressing this social problem, it is also imperative that economic costs and benefits be analyzed.
Cite this page
Animal Testing In Cosmetics. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Testing should Continue
Animal testing should continue you to be a legal and viable option to research. Animal testing has been used for centuries dating all the way back to 300 BC. Since its origin, animal testing has been an efficient way of making medical and biological breakthroughs. If it were not fro animal models who or what could we test on? There would be a very limited amount of people who would want to be a test subject in these studies. Animal testing is a necessity to ensure the well being of humans by curing diseases and epidemics, assisting endangered animals, and making sure cosmetics and drugs are safe for human use.
The first vaccine ever created was for Smallpox. Smallpox is a disease that plagued the world causing some survivors to go blind. According to the National Center for Biological Information (NCBI), It is believed to have appeared around 10,000 BC, at the time of the first agricultural settlements in northeastern Africa,(Riedel). This disease had been around for almost 12,000 years before there was any type of cure. For 12,000 years, people suffered with no certainty that they would overcome the disease.
Smallpox played a key role in the demise of the Aztec's civilization, and would have wiped out most of Europe if a vaccine were never developed. This disease would kill around 400,000 people annually in the 18th century (Riedel). Smallpox was spread from direct contact with a person who had it. Smallpox had flu like symptoms and killed a large amount of people who contracted it. The virus killed people in the Old and New World spreading from continent to continent.
Three hundred million people have died from the disease known as small pox. The world was looking at another super bug. Thanks to Edward Jenner and animal testing, he was able to successfully create a vaccine that saved millions of lives. Edward Jenner was able to take notice of how milkmaids never contracted smallpox, but instead ended up catching cowpox's.
He made an assumption that this was because cowpox's ended up acting as a vaccine for the milkmaid. Jenner wanted to prove that this was the case so he injected a young boy with pus from a boil infected with cowpox's. Jenner waited, and then he exposed the boy to smallpox. The boy never contracted smallpox's. The boy was immune. Today, smallpox is ultimately eradicated form Earth (Riedel). This would have never been possible without the ability to test and experiment on animals.
There are many medical breakthroughs that go on within the world of biomedical research. The way they do this is through using animals as test models. There are regulations that protect animals in these studies, and for the most part the scientific community takes care of these animals by hiring veterinarians. They are usually scheduled to visit once a week to check on the health of these animals. The United States federal law that covers animals in research is the Animal Welfare Act (New England Anti-Vivisection Society).
This law does not provide protection to cold-blooded animals or species such as rats, mice birds, etc. (New England Anti-Vivisection Society). This is the right way at going about this. Scientists are humans too. They treat these animals as human as possible, but they do these experiments to better the life of the human race and advance medical and biological knowledge. By protecting animals in research it should allow for more support and lead to more medical breakthroughs.
In the 1950's, Polio was running ramped effecting children and adults. Men, women, and children had to live their lives with paralysis in parts of their bodies. Polio crippled those who were infected; limiting the things they were cable of doing. Children were unable to go to school. Most of them were kept in hospitals at a polio ward having to walk around with leg braces or even restricted to a full body cast. Victims of polio lived harsh lives and ultimately ended up living with it or dying.
Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United States, contracted polio. In the article, Polio Elimination in the United States, it states In the early 1950s, before polio vaccines were available, polio outbreaks caused more than 15,000 cases of paralysis each year in the United States, (CDC). Just in the United States, polio was becoming an epidemic. It wasn't until Erwin Popper started doing tests on monkeys that a breakthrough was discovered. Years later Jonas Salk was able to produce a vaccine.
Polio and smallpox are just two examples of epidemics that had a major impact on society. Many epidemics have been able to be cured, starting by using animals as test models. Millions of people have been able to be protected and not have to worry about contracting a disease that would paralyze you for your life. Cancer used to be a death sentence, but now after using animals there are treatments to combat it and have a good chance of living. Anyone who has ever took any type of medicine has benefited from animal testing.
The human race is not the only species that prospers from doing research and tests on animals. Believe it or not, animals actually can benefit from these tests. In 1978, a disease began to spread among dogs called canine parvovirus. This disease was infecting dogs causing vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, and also death. Scientists were able to recognize that this disease was relatively the same as feline panleukopenia virus and create a vaccine from it. According to the Aalas Foundation, Since a vaccine was already available for the feline panleukopenia virus, a vaccine for parvovirus was developed, tested, and made available for distribution within a year, (Aalas Foundation). Dogs across the world were able to get vaccinated and recover from the parvovirus.
Not only has it helped dogs, animal testing has helped save endangered species. Asian elephants are an endangered species that are at risk of becoming extinct. Baby Asian elephants are susceptible to a certain deadly strain of the herpes virus known as the elephant endotheliotropic herpes virus (EEHV). This virus is killing young elephants when they contract EEHV in just a matter of a few days.
In the article Generation and Characterization of Antibodies against Asian Elephant, it states, Elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus (EEHV) can cause lethal hemorrhagic disease, particularly in juvenile Asian elephants in captivity, (Roca). It is our job to help prevent extinction from any species on this earth. Ironically, to help these elephants we have to experiment on animals. Scientists are using rats and mice as models for the elephants. They are studying how the virus affects the antibodies. As of right now they have successfully sequenced the virus genome according to the Foundation for Biomedical Research.
This breakthrough will assist in the process of making a vaccine for EEHV.
Animal testing is not just for vaccines and cures, it is also to test and see if products are safe for human use. A big part of animal testing is to ensure products are safe for human use. Researchers use animals to make sure no toxic chemicals will put the consumer's health at risk. If it weren't for animals, how else would products be tested? To test safety for humans you would have to administer the drug and hope for the best. Imagine if someone took a pill that had been untested and did serious harm or death. There would be outrage and the company could not help it because the legal way of testing drugs would not be adequate.
According to the Federal Drug Administration, Only 8% of the drugs tested on the animals are determined to be safe for humans, (Animal Legal Defense Fund). If these products went onto the market untested, it could cause severe damage to the consumers ranging from skin irritation all the way to blindness. If the choice were between a human and an animal, the logical choice would be to choose the animal. Animals do not necessarily contribute as much as a human does to society.
The counter-argument on the subject of animal testing is that it is immoral and wrong. These same people will go out to lunch and dine on an animal that had just been slaughtered for someone enjoyment. The reason scientists study are to better the lives of the people. Under that statement, it is not immoral. A common point that the people who oppose the belief that animal testing is justified is, there are other ways to test using cells instead of a living system.
The problem with using cells in pitri dishes is that it isn't a living system. Leslie Thompson, a Neurobiology Professor at UC Irvine, says, You can tweak the system with genetics that you can't do with other systems. The reason we study these living systems is because they have the appropriate structures, (Foundation for Biological Research, Youtube). A cell cannot suffice as a living system. The cell cannot resemble the complexity of the whole organism. Also, you cannot do the same studies and experiments you would do on an animal model. Scientists will induce the animal model and give them the disease they are trying to find a cure for. It would be immoral to give a living human a life changing disease.
Another point that they make is to say that the experiments of unnecessary and they feel pain. According to the article, Necessary, but Not Sufficient. The Benefit Concept in the Project Evaluation of Animal Research in the Context of Directive 2010/63/EU it states that, According to Directive 2010/63/EU, project proposals involving experiments on animals have to be approved in a harm-benefit-analysis (HBA) that weighs the potential benefits of the experiment against the harm inflicted on animals, (Eggel & Grimm). Each experiment is carefully examined and made sure to have a purpose that can help out a certain group. The animals are also given anesthesia so they wont feel pain during any procedure.
Cite this page
Animal Testing Should Continue. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Only Invertebrate Animals are Used
Imagine, one day you come home from school or work and your beloved pet is missing. You post signs everywhere only to find your pet on the streets with red puffy eyes, and he is unable to even open them. Your pet has a tag on it saying, experiment #212 with the logo of your favorite makeup brand. You take your pet to the vet to find out that they have been tested on with some kind of chemical compound similar to mascara. Unfortunately, your pet has passed away due to the vet not being able to fix the complications from the infection. Your pet was one result of millions of animals being tested on for cosmetic purposes.
Animal testing for beauty products should be illegal in the United States because it may permanently harm an animal or kill it. However, it is okay in the rare case that animal testing is used for medical purposes. Animal testing for beauty products began as early as 1938 when makeup and all of those things became more popular. Animal testing is when live-animals undergo a test for a formula in makeup, or a chemical going into the formula to test if its harmful to human skin or eyes.
Only invertebrate animals are used, like mammals. Some people think that animal testing just stops at rats/mice but, for beauty products testing it can be dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys. Approximately, 100,000-200,000 animals suffer and die every year as a result of animal testing for beauty products. As previously stated, animal testing is to ensure that the makeup formula or a chemical going into the makeup is not harmful to our skin and eyes.
To explain it a little more, they test it for its overall toxicity. If a beauty product like shampoo, sunscreen, eyeshadow, or mascara could permanently blind a person or burn their skin off, why would they want to use it? They use it because the company's products are in demand because of popularity. Popularity like celebrity endorsements, youtubers, or Instagram stars. The company should just use less harmful chemicals in their products so that they do not have to test the products on animals. A controversy surrounding animal testing is that the animals may suffer and die as a result of the pigment is just beautiful or my winged eyeliner looks flawless. These animal testings are cruel to animals, correct? Well, the United States has animal cruelty laws in all 50 states, yet this is still legal. Some companies have already banned animal testing with their beauty products, and are trying to put an end to all of it.
The beauty company LUSH. For more than 30 years, they have been fighting against animal testing. It's Cruel and ineffective, and despite some changes in the last four decades, there's still so much more to be done, says the LUSH company. This company advertises for animal testing awareness on all of their products like bags, packaging, and even on the receipts. In Europe, India, Israel, and Norway animal testing for cosmetics are banned. One good thing that has come out of animal testing, is animal testing for medical purposes. Due to animals and people being able to get the same illnesses some research is very beneficial to humankind. All medical research is planned out, and experts only use animal experimentation for urgent purposes. Scientists do try to keep the welfare of the animal in mind as they are experimenting, which means a small number of an applicable species can be used.
Veterinarians are an essential part of the medical research team. The veterinarians make sure that the animal is being treated humanely and they also provide the medical/surgical support. The animals are protected through laws, regulations, and policies to provide humane treatment to all of the animals in the research. The Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and the Animal Welfare Act give details about day-to-day animal care. Some good examples of animal testing for medical research would be on dogs to discover insulin for people with diabetes, monkeys for the polio vaccine, pigs for skin grafts for burn victims, and mice for a rabies vaccine.
Many people are against animal testing for beauty-products but, of course, we have people that would love to say that it is okay. Animals are a great way to further research on humans. This makes sense but, not all animals have the genetic makeup of a human. That means that these innocent animals that are not similar to humans were just inhumanely slaughtered all in the name of research. If scientists would like to discover more about humans, they could find some humans that have no problem being tested on. Some people believe that animal testing is cheaper than others.
This is also false. The USA spends $16 million dollars annually for animal testing at the taxpayer's dollar. Animal testing with beauty products is a short and fast process. The process to test if a company's eyeliner is not harmful, takes a while because they have to wait for the animals' eyes or skin to get red, irritate, or burn. Chemicals are left on animals for up to 2 weeks to make sure all the side effects or infections are caught in the research before sending the product out in the market. Some alternative methods for animal testing are Computer models, Cells and tissue cultures, and Alternative organisms. The first method, Computer models.
Computers can help to understand basic biology. There are computer generated simulations that can predict various biological and toxic effects of a chemical drug without animal testing. A common know software is Computer Aided Drug Design (CADD) which is used to identify the probable binding site and hence avoids testing of unwanted chemicals having no biological activity. Then when results are found, instead of putting animals through the whole process of testing, they can be used in the final stage for confirmation. The second method is the Cells and tissue cultures.
The use of in vitro cell and tissue cultures which involve the growth of cells outside the body in a laboratory environment which can be an important alternative for animal experiments. Cells and tissue from the animals' different organisms are taken out and can be stored outside if the body for months or even years. The chemical or formulas can then be tested on the cell or tissue and can see the reaction. The benefits correlated with these techniques are easy to follow, less time consuming, and less expensive. These methods are usually used for screening of a potential drug or chemical to check the toxicity. The third method is Alternative Organisms.
The whole reason for using animal testing is to use animals with vertebrates, as stated before. So in this case, scientists could use alternative organisms like lower vertebrates, Danio rerio, this fish has a transparent body which gives easy visual access the internal anatomy. Another organism would be invertebrates, Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the fruit fly. This genome is a very common invertebrate studied in science.
In Conclusion, animal testing should be illegal for beauty products because it harms the animals permanently, damages their eyesight or skin, and could potentially kill the animal if the chemical is harsh enough. If the chemical is that harmful, to begin with then those chemicals should not be distributed on the market. Using alternative methods would help the human population and keep all the animals safer. The exception to animal testing would only be for medical research to help the human race due to some animals containing the same genomes or genetic makeup as humans do.
Cite this page
Only Invertebrate Animals Are Used. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Anti-Vivisection Society
According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Each year, more than 100 million animals”including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds”are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing. In today's world where there are alternative methods available like human-based micro-dosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators, and computer modeling animal testing is no longer necessary and should be banned.
Not only does it cause suffering on a massive scale to animals it can negatively affect humans because we do not have the same genetic makeup as the animals so the results can not always be trusted. While animal testing has been going on since the ancient times it has become extremely important to the United State during the 20th century after a mass poisoning was caused by a medication used to treat the streptococcal infection. This incident and ones like it led to the passing of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring safety testing of drugs on animals before they could be marketed.
But even with the regulations incidents keep happening. For example, when the drug thalidomide was released it was marketed as a wonder drug for insomnia, cough, colds, and headaches and was found to also help stop morning sickness. The drug was prescribed to thousands of women and caused more than 10,000 children in 46 countries to be born with malformations or missing limbs. One technique that could replace animal testing is micro-dosing. This is a technique for studying the behavior of drugs in humans through the administration of doses so low they are unlikely to produce whole-body effects, but high enough to allow the cellular response to be studied. So essentially we could use this to test out products on ourselves through willing participants instead of animals which will give us more accurate results. Another technique that has become available in the last several years is in vitro testing.
It has come a long way, especially for the cosmetic industry. In vitro testing which means laboratory tests that are used to diagnose diseases and monitor the clinical status of patients using samples of blood, cells, or other tissues obtained from a patient can be applied to the industry because we could test products on samples of our cells and tissues in order to see how they would affect our skin and bodies. Currently, the cosmetic industry is benefiting from a kind of in vitro testing called 3D reconstruction of human skin. An important advantage of this method is it allows for tests that can confirm the ingredients used in the products as well as whether they are toxic to us.
The New England Anti-Vivisection Society is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to free animals from suffering and on their website, I found that: InVitro International's Corrositex (synthetic skin) can provide a chemical corrosivity determination in as little as 3 minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often takes two to four weeks. DakDak, an alternative test used to measure the effectiveness of sunscreens, was reported to do in days what it takes animal studies months to do, and estimates that it can test five or six products for less than half the cost to study a single product in animals.
The traditional testing of chemicals using animals can take up to five years per substance and cost millions of dollars, while non-animal alternatives can test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost. This shows that there are options available to the cosmetics industry to replace animal testing and the option are also a lot cheaper and faster which would allow more products to be tested and keep the industry moving forward with new products and new sources of income on top of the money they would be saving by switching to this method. A third technique is computer simulations. In heart drug research it has been shown that animal testing only has an accuracy rate of around 75% to 85% which cause a lot of drug withdrawals due to cardiovascular safety issues.
But with a computer-simulated human research at the University of Oxford has a computer model that is 89% to 96% when it comes to predicting side effects caused by drugs, such as dangerous arrhythmias “ where the heartbeat becomes irregular and can stop. It also has other advantages like reducing the number of animal experiments that occur in the early stages of testing new drugs and it also improves drug safety which then lowers the risk for real patient during the clinical trial and overall speeds up the whole process of drug development. Lastly, this can be used to target a certain population because some drugs can have side effects that are only harmful to that one population. For example someone with a specific genetic mutation or disease.
Animals that are being tested on are exposed to awful conditions and experiments that are looked at as necessary but with the technology, we have available it seems like a barbaric act to put the animals through this. On PETA's website, they explained that animals are put through so much torture until they are just ultimately killed off when they are no longer of use. Before their deaths, some [animals] are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed.
In addition to the torment of the actual experiments, animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them”they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized. The thinking, feeling animals who are used in experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment. As you can see by the photos and the description of what the animals have to go through it really is a barbaric act that needs to be stopped. How would you feel if it was your family pet being tested on and having their skull drilled into? You would not like it and neither do the animals that are being tested on. A big problem with stopping animal testing is that China requires certain products to be tested on animals in order to be sold and while they did make some changes it is still required by law on many products.
The products that are required to be tested on animals are any cosmetics made outside of China but are sold in mainland China and special use cosmetics made and sold in China. The products include sunscreens, deodorant, hair dyes, and many more. There are also some special cases where post-market testing is done and this can be done without the company knowledge and these tend to be done on ordinary products like makeup and perfume. And even on the products that are sold where it is not required by law, it ends up being in the companies choice whether they test on animals or not.
On the other hand, some believe that animal testing is necessary for many reasons. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. On ProCon website, they stated that according to: The California Biomedical Research Association . . . nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases removed led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 27 cases in 2016. So without animal testing, many lives would have been lost due to the diseases and virus present in our world.
Also, the animals that are being tested on have shorter life spans they make better research subjects. An example is the lifespan of laboratory mice is 2-3 years so you can see the effects of genetic manipulation and treatments over there whole lifespan or multiple generations. Animal testing has also been helpful in saving species from extinction. For example, Koalas which have now been classified as endangered in some parts of Australia have been plagued by chlamydia.
A new vaccine that is being tested on them has shown to slow the rate of infection and treat the beginning stage. Lastly, the benefits can also be reaped by the animals themselves because if vaccines had not been tested on animals, millions of animals would have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvovirus.
Cite this page
Anti-Vivisection Society. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Individual Uses Certain Cosmetic
When an individual uses certain cosmetics, takes antibiotics, or even gets vaccines, they are supporting the practice of animal testing either knowingly or unknowingly. Animals are tested, mostly by companies, with the intent of verifying that products and other materials are safe for human use. Although this practice can be beneficial for humans, testing on animals is abusive, the practice is unreliable, and animal testing costs an extravagant amount of tax money; therefore, this practice should be deemed illegal, and alternative practices should be used.
Animal testing is an abusive practice that studies, tortures, and causes the death od over 100 million animals each year (Animal Testing 101). Although many individuals believe that animals do not feel pain, like humans, they do.
A large reason why animal testing is viewed as so abusive is due to the degree in which animals are treated. For example, according to Sarah Rose A. Miller, One commonly used procedure is the Draize Test, which is used to test household products for harmful chemicals. In the Draize Eye Irritancy Test, solutions are applied immediately to the subjects' eyes-usually a group of albino rabbits. This often causes intense pain and destroys the rabbits' eyes, leaving them raw and bleeding. After the test period (around seven hours), the rabbits are killed so they can be examined for internal damage. As one can see, animals encounter extreme abuse in this setting; researchers view the animals as objects rather than living beings who feel pain.
The animals do not have any say in how they want to live their lives, and they are tortured to death. Not only is animal testing painful for animals, but it also can easily ruin an animal's quality of life. For example, according to Bogdan Marinescu and Cristin Coman, many researchers and animal testers snip animals ears, remove body parts to test them, severely burn them, and use many other methods of testing (Marinescu, B., & Coman, C.). As one can see, animals go through a great deal of pain and suffering when in this captivity, and this contributes to their poor quality of life.
In addition, the majority of animals that are tested on are confined to a very small space, which also makes a large contribution to the animal's poor quality of life (Miller). Lastly, animals are tested on with chemicals, and this practice can significantly harm them. According to Sarah Miller, This procedure is used to measure the toxicity of a substance-the amount of the substance it takes to kill half a group (generally 200) of test animals. The test usually goes on for days, and the animals suffer extreme pain and distress. As one can see, humans are insensitively exposing animals to chemicals and seeing if they survive it or not in order to test that it is safe. The animals are tortured, and they do not have any control over what is happening to them. Furthermore, animal testing should be illegal due to the agony that animals are being forced to experience.
Animal testing should be outlawed due to the unreliability of making sure that materials are safe for humans to use. Many studies and instances have proven that animal testing is not reliable when it comes to confirming that materials are safe for human usage. For example, The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans (Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing). As one can see, this number can be stunning due to the likeliness of a product harming an individual. As further proof, according to Sheree Stachura, Just recently, Vioxx, a medication manufactured by Merck and approved by the FDA, was pulled from the market.
The medication caused 25% of 239 patients taking it to have heart attacks within 13 days of starting the drug. As one can see, this statistic provides evidence that animal testing is unreliable and perhaps disquieting. It is alarming for some individuals to apprehend that humans do not know what is going to happen to them if they use a material that they believe is safe, but actually is not. Lastly, animals and humans have many significant contrasts (Stachura). For example, animals and humans differ when it comes to genetics and responses to materials (Edwards). Therefore, if we have so many contrasts, then how do humans know that they are completely safe from a material that was only tested on animals? Humans are unknowingly taking a moral risk when using materials that used animal testing, and the reason for this is that testing on animals is an unreliable method. Thus, alternative practices should be put into place.
Not only does animal testing cost many animals' lives, but it also costs a lot of money. One may ask, Where does all of this money come from? According to Kayla Newcomer, the funds for animal testing, which is about 14.5 million dollars every year, comes from taxes, and the government uses the taxes to pay for testing. Therefore, there are many people in the United States who are unknowingly and/or forcefully contributing to the practice of animal testing.
In addition, specific studies cost a lot of money. For example, did you know that studying a chromosome aberration on animals costs $30,000 (Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing)? Furthermore, like mentioned before, unreliability is a large dilemma in animal testing. Therefore, humans are spending a great amount of money on animal testing, and humans do not know for sure if materials are safe to use. To bring down the cost and test for more reliability, there are alternative solutions for animal testing that researchers can use.
In response to a claim that animal testing should not be legal, Jeffery A. Running, a microbiologist and research scientist, claimed that animal testing saves human lives. In fact, he claims that if animal testing did not exist, that the adverse effect rate from materials would be much higher than it already is. Within his argument, Running claims, If vaccines weren't produced, many millions (yes, millions) of people would die as a result of infectious disease. If vaccines were produced, but were tested directly on humans, vaccines that did have harmful side effects would harm people instead of animals (Running).
Furthermore, humans cannot perform tests directly on to humans to test whether or not they are safe for usage, so animals are the only option to make sure that a material is somewhat for human use is safe. This sourced is biased due to the fact that Running, a microbiologist and research scientist, job relies on testing materials on animals to make sure they are safe for human use. Running claims that animal testing has saved many lives, and without it, many humans would be harmed (Running).
Although Running makes a strong claim that animal testing saves lives, the practice also puts human lives in danger. The unreliability of animal testing surpasses the possibility of animal testing catching flaws in materials. If a product is unsafe, then it could easily harm or even kill a human. However, there are other reliable, alternative methods to animal testing that could potentially save more humans lives than animal testing would. One of the alternatives includes in-vitro testing.
In-vitro testing is where human cells are placed on a slide, and its job is to impersonate human reactions to a substance (Alternatives to Animal Testing). It can be believed that in-vitro testing allows for more accurate results due to the fact that it acts similar to humans epidermis (Alternatives to Animal Testing). As one can see, in-vitro testing, which allows for testing to be done is a human-like, accurate way; this will essentially reduce the risk of unreliability being an issue, and, it will not harm any animals in the process.
According to staff from The Scientist, individuals who perform studies and research on animals take into consideration the animal's pain and distress, and essentially attempt to make the environment tolerable. For example, researchers will only use the number of animals necessary to get the results that they desire (Reducing Pain and Distress in Animal Research). In addition, according to Ian Murnaghan, researchers live by the three Rs: reduction, replacement, and refinement. This means that researchers are making an attempt to decrease the number of animal subjects, trying to use different techniques for testing that does not require animals, and making an attempt to make the testing easier on the animal (Murnaghan).
Although researchers are trying to reduce the amount of harm placed on an animal, this does not change the fact that animals are still being harmed by animal testing. If researchers were concerned with the state animals were in, then they would not perform animal testing at all. For example, like mentioned previously, animal are forced to suffer through studies that result in problems such as burns (Marinescu, B., & Coman, C.).
To put a stop to animal testing completely, alternative testing practices can be put into place. Like mentioned previously, in-vitro testing is certainly an alternative possibly (Alternatives to Animal Testing). In addition, computer modeling could be the future of medical research and animal testing (Alternatives to Animal Testing). Computer modeling has made it to where technology has the ability to find cures and use QSAR testing rather than using animal subjects (Alternatives to Animal Testing). As one can see, the alternatives to animal testing are feasible; humans just have to put in the time and effort in using them rather than using animal subjects.
Testing on animals has been proven to be cruel, unreliable, and costly. As one can see, there are other alternative methods to avoid animal testing. This can and eventually will be beneficial for both animals and humans. Therefore, humans should take initiative and deem animal testing as illegal. Alternative testing such as in-vitro and computer modeling could benefit humans immensely, and be the future of testing materials.
Works Cited
Alternatives to Animal Testing. PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for- experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Animal Testing 101. PETA, 2018, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for- experimentation/animal-testing-101/. Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
Badyal, Dinesh, and Chetna Desai. "Animal use in Pharmacology Education and Research: The Changing Scenario." Indian Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 46, no. 3, 2014, pp. 257-265. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1534137941?accountid=14197, doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.132153.
Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing. Humane Society International, www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_product_testing/facts/time_and_cost.html. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Edwards, Sarah. "Achieving Standards without Sacrificing My Own." Voices from the Middle, vol. 10, no. 1, 2002, pp. 31-34. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/213932428?accountid=14197.
Marinescu, Bogdan, and Cristin Coman. "The Ethics of Animals Testing." Revista Romana De Bioetica, vol. 8, no. 3, 2010. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1286687152?accountid=14197.
Miller, Sarah R. A. "Animal Research." The Humanist, vol. 61, no. 5, Sep, 2001, pp. 15-18. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/235290335?accountid=14197.
Murnaghan, Ian. "Replacement Of Animal Testing". Aboutanimaltesting.Co.Uk, 2018, https://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/replacement-of-animal-testing.html. Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
Newcomer, Kayla. "Federal Government Funds Animal Testing, Animal Experiments | Global Animal". Global Animal, 2018, https://www.globalanimal.org/2013/10/07/guilty- government-practices/. Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
Reducing Pain and Distress in Animal Research. The Scientist Magazine, www.the- scientist.com/news/reducing-pain-and-distress-in-animal-research-63445. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Running, Jeffrey A. "Animal Testing Helps Protesters Live 20 Years Longer."Milwaukee Journal, Jul 27, 1990, pp. A08. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/333434439?accountid=14197.
Stachura, Sheree,R.N., B.S.N. "Drug Safety: An Argument to Ban Animal Testing."Journal of Nursing Law, vol. 12, no. 4, 2008, pp. 147-156. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/206506555?accountid=14197, doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1073-7472.12.4.147.
The Truth about Animals Used for Experimentation. PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals- used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing. PETA, 20 Apr. 2018, www.peta.org/blog/top-five- reasons-stop-animal-testing/comment-page-1/.
Cite this page
Individual Uses Certain Cosmetic. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Stereotypes in the Series no Tomorrow
Although the series No Tomorrow ended up being canceled after it aired one season on the CW television network, it has been deemed pleasurable, humorous, and thought provoking, with an intriguing plot twist. No Tomorrow addresses issues real people experience throughout their life such as: conflicts within relationships, acceptance of yourself and others, and growing as an adult due to making life changing decisions, while also breaking societal stereotypes for the romantic-comedy genre, as well as television as a whole, depicting the importance of diversity and welcoming change.
In the beginning of the series, we meet the main character, Evie; a tall, goofy, beautiful blonde, who works a dissatisfying job in a warehouse that is similar to Amazon, with a boss named Deirdre, that is rude and undermining, along with Evie's two best friends and coworkers, Hank and Kareema, who help Evie through difficult times, while also facing their own day to day problems. There is also Timothy, Evie's on and off again boyfriend, who is so soft spoken, that at times, he needs subtitles for you to know what he is saying. The second leading role of the show is Xavier, the attractive, british guy Evie meets in a local farmers market, who believes the world is going to end in approximately eight months, due to his complex mathematical findings that proved an asteroid was on track to collide with Earth, thus he leaves his life of boring employment and unhappiness, in exchange for freedom and fulfillment.
Xavier plans to spend what little time he has left completing his apocalyst, which is a journal he filled with different activities, goals, and desires he wishes to accomplish before the world ends. He also tries to spread the word of his findings to others in the world, and even the government, but is viewed as crazy and dismissed until the last episode of the series. Evie was also on the fence about Xavier's theory, but eventually decided that she needed change in her life by giving it purpose and fulfillment, while also still keeping her responsibilities as a working class citizen, thus beginning the romance between Evie and Xavier, and their continuous checking off of apocalyst items. She does, however, state that she does not necessarily believe the world was going to end, but rather is these changes for her self-betterment (Yates).
Other characters follow Evie's lead, creating their own version of an apocalyst, leading to more community involvement in simply living happier lives. Xavier and his theory creates the plot twist of doomsday prepping, while also altering the romcom genre by morphing a terrifying theory, along with its negative impacts, into a more positive, and uplifting vibe. The final episode ends with each character beginning a new chapter in their lives with confidence, including Evie and Xavier, who discover that they want different things out of life at the moment (Weidenfeld). Essentially, the purpose of the show is not to fulfill your wildest dreams, but to achieve things you want in life, while dealing with all the difficulty it may entail, leaving the viewer feeling optimistic about the future at the end of each episode (Jones).
The most notable piece of ground breaking screenplay present in the show is ironically seen in its diverse supporting characters, varying in race, size, gender, sexual orientation, and beliefs. One positive review, No Tomorrow: TV Show Review, written by Gupta Saab, explains that even though there were some rom com cliches that were evident, the show had very few, and that he enjoyed the series even more because of actor variation and how race, nor ethnicity impacted the characters personas. Saab claimed to have wanted to see even more diversity because it was so pleasing to the eye. He does, however, state that the supporting characters could use more screen time, but are still, Interesting and dimensional. Many critics and viewers agree with Saab, elaborating that these aspects of the show made the audience come back for more, due to its light-hearted temperament and character relatability to its audience.
In contrast to Saab, Jen Chaney offered more harsh critiques of No Tomorrow in her article, The CW's No Tomorrow is Mostly Pleasurable, Breezy Fun, suggesting that the show will most likely flop due to its overloaded plot within the first episode, explaining that it seemed more like a condensed film than a television series. She notes that the show is too fast-paced, and needs to dive deeper into the characters, and should avoid the use of cliches in dialogue. Chaney further iterations that the only way the series will become successful is through the leading roles and how the actors convey their relationship throughout the season, along with the viewer's ability to embrace its fictional elements and ignore contrivances of the script. She ends her conclusion with the comment, No Tomorrow is more about a woman trying to connect with her own bliss, while maybe finding a guy in the process, than the story of a girl seeking nothing more than a boy. Admittedly, there's a very fine line between those two types of quests. No Tomorrow may be able to stay on the more interesting side of that delicate divide. As to whether it actually pulls that off, as Evie might say: Let me get back to you, alluding to its possibility of failure in comparison to other popular CW series such as Jane the Virgin and Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, that have the same producers.
Chaney does not completely dismiss the show, describing its potential to develop into a success as, Pleasurable, breezy fun, but contradicts Saab in advocating that the characters lack depth, completely overlooking key qualities of their subcultures. Although, I can agree with Chaney that the first episode plot was slightly overdone; thus I understand her concern, as it may have been too overwhelming for some viewers to want to continue watching. My view, however, coincides predominantly with Gupta Saab, in that the characters possess depth as the show progresses, even though there are a limited number of episodes available. Furthermore, I concur that No Tomorrow expresses a sufficient amount of insight on the characters personas between dialogue, body language, and how their personalities and desires unfold from the social and physical environments around them, while also displaying various subcultures that lack stereotypical depictions based on the actors ethnicity.
Many characters defy a stereotype, in some way, within the show. For Evie, the viewer first perceives her as a stereotypical blonde that is attractive, yet lacks confidence, and sticks with the status quo (Yates). Overtime, she starts to show the depth of her personality and internal struggles she has about wanting something more for herself. This is first revealed when she rejects Timothy's proposal to her by saying she needs time to think. It is also exhibited when she takes a stand against Xavier. He decided to take matters into his own hands, and got her fired from her job, thinking it would help push her along in his direction of living a free-spirited lifestyle. Evie's personally would generally fall weak in competition with someone like Xavier, yet she breaks the tradition and displays female empowerment by appreciating his efforts to help her bring fulfillment into her life, but decides she is going to work on her own agenda (Jones). She does this by staying employed, stepping out of her comfort zone by confronting her prejudices, making her own decisions for enhancing her future, and standing up for herself against Deidre's oppressive judgmentalness, and Xavier when he overstepped his boundaries.
Kareema is a fiesty, modern, pansexual, and blunt southeast asian, who could not be further away from the stereotypical Indian woman. She states in the first episode, Honestly, I don't know what's sadder. The utter meaninglessness of this job, or your attempts to imbue it with meaning. But then I remember there is no sadness and we're all just bags of dust in an infinite universe, (No Tomorrow). This shows her view on the purpose of life and fulfillment, along with religion and what is beyond. Throughout the series, Kareema makes comments or recalls certain activities she partakes in such as heavy partying and multiple sexual encounters. We even meet her mother and brother, who go against common societal beliefs of Indian normalities, as far as clothing and commentary, with the exception of her mother noting that if Kareema does not find a partner soon and marry, that it will be done for her, coinciding with traditions of indian culture. Alternatively, she falls in love with her brother's fiance', ultimately changing her outlook on life from a predominantly negative and cynical outlook, to a more happy and loving stance.
Deirdre on the other hand is a strong woman who has a leader position within the show as the boss of the warehouse, displaying a woman in a position of power and authority, even over men. The viewer perceives Deidre to be sexy, cruel, yet hilarious, and at the end of the day, love struck for her assistant Hank. Her cruel words are seen when talking to Evie in the beginning of the series, stating, Well, you're not a leader. People don't listen when you talk. You're too timid. You don't motivate people. You lack confidence. You don't command respect. You're an inspiration to absolutely no one, (No Tomorrow). Although she insults Evie's work ethic, and her personality, we see later on, that Deirdre seeks Evie's help in attempting to get Hank to be interested in her. She even develops character wise socially, becoming more kind to her employees and establishes friendships within Evie's circle.
Both Kareema and Deidre defy their common stereotypes, and are presented as normal, working women, facing relationship and workplace issues, making them relatable to the audience. This is a refreshing change in comparison to other television series that depict females with biased, misogynist views, dress them in inappropriate clothing, or form their characters personas based off of their race and gender. We can also see these non stereotypical qualities present in the male supportive roles in No Tomorrow; Timothy and Hank, who are also best friends in the series.
Timothy is at first presented to the audience as a biracial nerd, that writes for a technology magazine. His character is a timid, quiet, and awkward guy, who is heartbroken by Evie when she rejects his engagement. Although Timothy does not want to move on from Evie, he knows he has to try and put himself out there. He decides to strength his persona and go out with different women he meets online, in bars, at parties in hot tubs, and even in the workplace. By doing so, he statters his nerdy mold by improving his life, while also staying true to his characterization, by simply adding more confidence to his self-esteem, and even getting himself a few different lady friends.
Hank is yet another character within this story that believes the apocalypse is coming, but at the hands of the Russian government and its nuclear power to bomb the world. Hank is an african American man, and paranoid conspiracy theorist, who believes the only way to survive this global act of terrorism is to seek shelter in a bunker he believes exists to protect the world's leaders. He is also depicted as loyal, kind hearted, caring, loud, and a great best friend, as well as Deidre's lover, but they face hardship due to workplace policies on relationships and dating coworkers. Hank defies traditional stereotypes associated with black people; he is not a thug, drug dealer, or rapper, he does not have a baby mama, and has not been in prison. Instead, Hank is a presentable, well dressed man who is employed, and simply wants to be happily in love, and safe from the Russians.
Gupta Saab explains these characters and their differentiation in comparison to their stereotypes, which is spot on. He further iterations that No Tomorrow shows that no matter what you identify as, we are all still human beings. While some critics, like Jen Chaney, think otherwise, believing that the plot is overdone, and the characters are flat, lacking in dimension and development. Although I agree with Chaney up to a point, I fully endorse Saab in his final conclusion that the characters maintain subcultures that bend traditional stereotypical views associated with their identity, especially the supporting roles due to their increasing variation in comparison to Evie and Xavier, who still defy these social stigmas, just not to as high of a degree of the other actors. The differentiation among the cast gives the characters extra dimension, and meaning, making the show more interesting and capturing the hearts of a diverse audience.
Cite this page
Stereotypes In The Series No Tomorrow. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Experimentation is Vital
What's the Price
Animal rights is based on the belief that non-human animals have rights similar and equal to humans. However testing is clearly split down the middle. Today animals are used in the development of all kinds of things, such as medical research by the use of animal experimentation. Animal testing provides some people with hope for potential cures for viruses but testing on live animals is not necessary. Today, advanced technology takes care of that for us. By using models, we can replicate things that animals can't.
You may ask yourself so what's the big problem? Well the problem is these animals are cruelly mistreated and most likely will lead to death. These animals are born with defects and experimented on. Animal testing should be banned because it's cruel, unnecessary and not effective. Animal testing is not only down right wrong, it's also unjust in today's society.
Animal experimentation is vital to the development and the future of the human race. Scientists believe that animal research saves thousands of lives worldwide and is reasonably safe. Scientists rely on animal models to learn how diseases process and work on developing potential treatments. Animal experimentation is saving the lives of people who had little hope for survival and without recent developments these cures would not be possible. In order for scientists to look for cures, they have to use animals as test patients to see how a disease continually progresses in a living body (Trull 2).
Scientists can't just have any species. They have to have species that is close to a human's genome, such as mice or even primates. Mice are particularly known as the most common model for disease research. Infact, mice share over 92% genetic similarity to us humans (Trull 2). Over the past century, animal research has proved to be vital to stamp out several major epidemics of infectious disease. Most notable is the cure of smallpox. By testing on cows, scientists were able to develop a vaccination for the disease. Also, decades of long research with monkeys, dogs, and mice gave us a cure to get rid of polio.
These non-human primates have also contributed to the research and the development of drugs that fight cancer, malaria, HIV/Aids and many more diseases (Animal Testing 1). Research and experimentation has allowed us to increase the U.S. survival rate of cancer by more than 60% between 2001-2007. (Trull 1). All because of animal experimentation, those numbers were possible. Also, more recently, animal research has helped stop potential international threats, such as Avian Flu and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome or also known as SARS (Animal Testing 2).
Animal Research has helped researchers better understand these diseases and how they spread. As a result, we can contain and avert these global pandemics. Recently, the polio virus is another example of how valuable animals are to us. An anti- Ebola serum has showed remarkable success when tested in Rhesus monkeys. Since then, the serum has been credited with saving the lives of two Americans infected with the virus (?Trull 2). The serum is so successful that the FDA has offered 42 million to the company, who developed the treatment known as, ZMapp. Furthermore just last September, a Japanese women became the first person to undergo experimental stem-cell treatment for blindness (Trull 3).
Animal research has allowed us to get that much closer in restoring vision. While this research is helpful to humans, it's also helpful to other animals. Wild primates are also susceptible to Ebola especially gorillas. They are so susceptible, they have a mortality rate of 95% when affected with the disease (Trull 2). One-third of the world's primates have been killed off in the past few decades in Central Africa. A cure would save the lives of animals and humans. The greatest medical contribution may still lie in the future but it's going to be tackled because of animal experimentation and research.
Animals have a lot more in common with us humans than you may think. Recent breakthroughs in technology, show we have a better understanding of how animals feel pain and suffering just like we do. Some animals like primates are not only biologically similar with humans, but they are also similar in neurologically. What most people don't see is that these animals have mental lives comparable to ours. The animals can not only feel sensitivities, but they can also feel pain and deprivation (Jeory 2). We as humans definitely differ in our physical appearance, but we have a lot more in common with them then appearance. Animals in labs are cruelly mistreated and are intentionally injured for various of reasons.
Lab animals on a daily basis are intentionally infected with diseases, force fed chemicals, blinded burned, mutilated, and left to suffer without veterinary care for treatment (Moore 1). How cruel is that! Imagine you and your family being put in small cages and treated inhumanly. No one could imagine that happening to them and their families so why do we think it's ok to do these actions against living animals. We may have to test on the experimenters to get them to see the point that it's not ok. Test against humans would not only affect us physically, but mentally as well and that's what we are doing to animals.
According to Dr. Jane Goodall, a famous primatologist and peace keeper, animal testing is inhumane and morally wrong (Moore 2). She said, I and my team have studied chimpanzees, our closest living relative for over 50 years. I can state categorically that they have a similar capacity for suffering, both mental and physical, and show similar emotions to ours. She also said, there's no doubt other animals that they have studied can not feel fear, depression, anxiety frustration and so on. To put them into cases in labs are also morally wrong in her opinion. Coming from a women that has physically interacted and studied animals for over 50 years has to know what's she's talking about. Her entire life is dedicated to these animals who have no voice. Experimentation is not only morally wrong but it's painful to all animals affected. We need to come together as a world and end testing for once and for all.
Change is upon us and we can go away from these actions by recent technology, but for some reason were not. Animal experimentation is wrong especially when you know that we don't have to do it in today's society. Today, we can now replicate human organs on microchips to test the potential impacts of drugs, diseases, and more. Not only can we replicate organs, but we can also simulate diseases progressing in the human body by using computer modeling (Moore 3). Modeling accurately predicts the ways in which the new drugs will react in the human body. Also brain-imaging techniques allow the human brain to be studied safely in very effective methods.
We now have the capabilities to study the human brain all the way down to a single neuron. That's incredible! (Jeory 3). Technology can replace the use of animals in exploratory research and many standard drug tests. During experiments, animals are intentionally brain damaged and with this technology, we can replace their crude behavior. We should continue to develop even more advanced alternatives so maybe scientists can see that technology is better than actual testing and it has more capabilities than animals would give us.
Finally, animal experimentation is bad science and time and time again experiments show high failure rates. Not only does animal experiments waste the lives of animals, but it also wastes human lives. Numerous of methodical reviews have even documented the enormous failure rates of experiments on animals to benefit humans in the areas of neurodegenerative disease, neuropsychiatric disorders, cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer and many more areas (Gluck 4). Nine out of ten experimental drugs that pass animal studies, fail in humans and that's why you see loss of human life.
The few drugs that are even re-labeled or pulled from the store shelves have already put their effects on humans that purchased them. Many people get sick or die before there is ever a chance to fix it. Decades of HIV and Aids experiments have failed to produce effective vaccines for humans even though at least 85 were successful in primate studies. Even John Loannidis, Professor of Medicine and Health Research at Stanford University says, it's impossible to rely on animal data to predict the benefit and risk ratio in human subjects.
Animal experimentation is an easy change but there's one issue with the change and that's money. At the end of the day, corporations and universities are not making changes because current advanced technology cost more money than testing on animals. As you can see, animal testing is very twisted and cruel. Depending on what side you are on, you may not see it that way. People believe animal testing is a necessity in today's society but it's not. Through my research, I discovered there are many different solutions but to end testing, both sides are going to have to come together to make compromises to make difference in the world.
Cite this page
Animal Experimentation Is Vital. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Testing for Medical Purposes
Animal Testing For Medical Purposes Should Be Banned
Animal testing for medical purposes, also known as animal experimentation, is conducted when inventing new medicine to cure people. In order to test the safety and the effectiveness of new drugs, animals that share similar genetic groups with humans are used as experimental objects to simulate the human environment.
The world has been witnessing the debate of whether to ban animal testing since 1930s, when an animal-tested drug called the DEG caused more than 100 deaths of people . This essay will first argue against Animal Testing for medical purposes from moral basis. Then, it will deeply analyze the current situation of animal testing, distinguishing the achievements of animal testing from the apparent or hidden drawbacks, in order to persuade people that disadvantages overshadow advantages. After that, it will list alternatives to replace animal testing for medical purposes and prove their promising future developments. At last, this essay will summarize from all the arguments and give a conclusion.
Animal Testing: An immoral, cruel form of experiment
Animal Testing is morally wrong. This is the basis of why it should be banned. Even where there are laws against cruelty towards animals , the brutality of animal treatment still crosses any justifiable line. Dr. Chaitanya Koduri, science policy advisor for PETA chronicles laboratories, wrote that rats and mice infested with worms and mites and the decayed bodies of newborn animals (were just) left lying on the groundsheep had holes drilled into their skulls and were injected with rabies Ratswere blinded after having glass tubes pushed behind their eyes to extract blood. Lauren Walker of Newsweek describes experiments like this: the monkeys were made to inhale a lethal amount of anthrax, (they had) difficulty breathing (they) were vomiting, losing control of their bowels. Many were just left to die . These are just a few of the countless examples of cruelty to animals. At least 115 million animals are tested on each year, large percentages of those without any anesthesia .
Yet, many people stay ignorant of all those immoral experiments, simply because they are far away from them. On the contrary, the benefits of animal testing to humans are quite obvious: it is helpful to cure human diseases. The details of this statement will be analyzed in the following paragraphs, in which they will be argued against. At this point, it is no bother to assume this statement to be 100% trustworthy, and the following theory will explain why. According to Kohlberg, the theory of Stages of Moral Development, whether to ban animal testing lies in the contradiction between requirements in Social Contract and Individual Rights (stage 5) and requirements in Universal Ethical Principles (stage 6) .
At stage 5, people tend to gain the mutual benefit for all in society. So, if animal testing for medical reasons is beneficial to the majority of mankind, it should be conducted regardless of any fixed law. That is the reason for many proponents of animal testing. However, at stage 6, people cease to just think of themselves, the society or any other concrete entities in the human world. Instead, their behavior depends upon universal ethical principles: justice, equality and conscience. From this level, although animal testing is probably beneficial, it is undoubtably cruel, because every form all it deliberately violates fundamental rights for animals as a form of life, and all lives are sacred. British poet Tomas Hardy has an excellent expression in the novel Jude the Obscure to clarify this phenomenon : Do not do an immoral thing for moral reasons. In other words, all kinds of animal testing should be banned, regardless of their different purposes; all kinds of animal testing should be banned, whether they are beneficial to mankind or not.
Animal Testing: An unreliable, wasteful and dangerous choice
Supporters of animal testing have good reasons indeed. They argue that the medical and scientific advances earned by animal testing have allowed countless lives to be saved from the ravages of disease and injury, so that banning animal testing causes hundreds of thousands of deaths every year because of the lack of effective medicine. They can list a lot of achievements, including HIV , GBM and other treatments. Nevertheless, they apparently ignore the following three factors:
First, it has to be admitted that animal testing for medical reasons has played important roles in case of curing diseases, but the efficiency is questionable. In order to invent a valid new medicine, scientists usually conduct thousands of experiments, resulting in possibly one successful example. Cancer drugs, among all drugs, have the lowest success rate, for only 5% of all samples are proved effective after entering clinical trials. Other examples, such as psychiatry drugs (6% approved), heart drugs (7% valid) and neurology drugs (8% success), are in almost the same condition .
The problem with this is not because that scientists haven't done enough experiments, but because human genetic groups, though very similar to those animals that we test on, are different and will only be affected by the genetic determinants and physiological mechanisms that are unique to our own. A study published in Science found that a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice. Even if scientists made this gene to express in genetically altered mice, it behaved differently. The worse thing was that this injected gene had exactly the opposite effect from what should have in humans --- it caused loss of blood sugar control in mice. So, if scientists use animal models, they will not be confounded with relevant data. Instead, they will actually be diverted away from unraveling the causes behind human diseases and be misguided.
Second, the cost of using animal testing to make medicine is incredible. The US government, for instance, spends as much as $14.5 billion per year on animal testing, with several projects continuously demanding for taxpayers' money but resulting in nothing . Anthony Bellotti, founder and executive director of White Coat Waste Project, said: This large amount of money is paying for experiments in which small dogs are forced to run on treadmills until they have heart attacks at schools like Wayne State University, and to study the effects of crystal meth on monkeys at UCLA. How can we justify government waste like this?
Moreover, there is little need to calculate the number of testing animals---they are too many to be counted. By sacrificing all those lives and all that large amount of money, what benefits does the world have? The truth is, whether supporters of animal testing admit it or not, billions of dollars are spent every year on useless programs that are cruel and inhumane and have no scientific benefits.
Third, even when drugs do pass animal testing, they can be deadly for humans. Blind faith in animal tests means that incidents like TGN 1412 trials happen. The drug showed no ill effects, after testing in mice, rabbits, rats and monkeys and even being given 500 times the dose for humans to those animals for four consecutive weeks. However, within minutes of being given to humans, some patients suffered from permanent organ damage. Horribly, one of them was spotted as swelling heads and was regarded as elephant man trial. This is not just a rare example. Alzheimers drugs and hepatitis drugs also reported similar accidents . If animal testing is aimed at saving human lives, it also puts people in greater danger.
Animal Testing: Can be replaced and ultimately becomes unnecessary
From technological, financial and social perspective, animal testing has been proved unreliable, wasteful and dangerous; from the moral basis, it is obligated to stop this inhumane behavior. The strongest argument for not banning animal testing is now reduced to this: It is morally wrong and has all those disadvantages, but it is indispensable, therefore cannot be cancelled. It is possibly true before, during the last century, when other technologies were not developed. Today, things are different.
Artificially constructed organs can now model diseases and their cures, eliminating the need for animal testing. Donald Ingber, Doctor at Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, has constructed a human lung. Cells within it are susceptible to infections. When Ingber's team added bacteria to the airspace of the lung-on-a-chip, white blood cells swarmed to the bacteria. They have also tested the toxicity of a cancer drug known to fill patient's lungs with fluid, a condition known as pulmonary edema.
Ingber's lung-on-a-chip is one of many new attempts at replacing animal models with more effective analogs. Despite artificial organs, computer models can extensively simulate human inner environment.
A research team at the Danish National Veterinary Institute has spent years feeding computer models with information about toxins. The so-called QSAR models (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships) help them study unknown substances for health hazards, and they can also in certain situations reduce the demand of animal testing. This model is also capable of comparing the chemical structure of the new substance with existing substances in the database. Though not very developed, methods related to cloud calculating and huge databases like this will become mature in the foreseeable future.
With these methods, the number of diseases that need animal testing to cure is declining---ultimately it may be unnecessary at all, and this is not an unreasonable guess. After all, science and technology are always developing---a natural tendency. One day, animal testing would be old-fashioned and replaced
To sum up, animal testing for medical reasons has a cruel history, a questionable and current situation and a doomed future. Maybe it was useful and helpful in the past; it is time for us to ban animal testing now. The process could be long and arduous, but there is hope. John F. Kennedy, the 35th president of the US, told his people in his inaugural speech to have faith. Although he was talking about something else, the spirit within his words is the same: All this will not be finished in the first hundred year, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet, but let us begin.
Cite this page
Animal Testing For Medical Purposes. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Medicine has been Dramatically Development
Medicine has been dramatically development, especially in the last century. Animal experimentation has been used since the very first day of medical science such as Aristotle, (384 “ 322 BC) and Erasistratus, (304 “ 258 BC) (Hajar). There are 108 Nobel Prizes which rewarded for medicine and physiology since 1901 and 96 of those are directly base on the animal (The animal). Despite researching are focusing on particle and gene level, animal testings are still the standard steps to develop a new drug. Beside of that, demanding for basic rights is one of the features of developed societies.
Not only fighting for the human right but also for animal right, some organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) and the American Fund for Alternatives to Animal Research (AFAAR), etc were found to protest against activities which can harm the animal. In fact, these organizations have achieved some goals and contributed to a more humane society. However, especially in medical research, animal experimentations should be continuous because of valuable role, unbelievable biological similarities between animal and human and unreplaceable in some cases.
Thanks to animal experimentation, since the very first day, human being have definitely achieved many meaningful progressions in biomedicine which help them get over historical pandemics, fighting diseases and keep healthy. Vaccination is one of obvious benefit from which human have earned. The smallpox pandemic, (1870-1874) spread throughout Europe and other continents caused a heavy fatality. Due to the disease, there were more than 170,000 deaths throughout German, more than 35,000 deaths in Belgium, 155,335 deaths in Austria(Rolleston).
Initially, they used humanized vaccine but could not afford the demand and even occasionally transmitted syphilis from person to person. Because of these, animal which were horses, mules, goats, rabbits were used to create a vaccine. It dramatically decreased the number of deaths and finally eradicated smallpox in 1977. Moreover, not only smallpox but also many other infective diseases have been controlled efficiently by vaccine since 1880 such as rabies in 1880, typhoid, cholera plague in 1890, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, tuberculosis in 1920, etc (Botting). The numbers have their voices that we can not reject the role of vaccine in healthcare in which animal is one of the major factors.
On the other hand, some people claim that animal experimentation is just wasting lives and these activities did not actually play any role in medical development. Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances (Berlatshy). However, only by the proof vaccine, the claim seems to be overgeneralization and contradicts a lot of medical achievements which were meaningful to the history of human development. I cannot imagine what would have happened if they had not used an animal to create the vaccine. But why was an animal?
In experimentation, mostly, scientists try to find how a live body reacts to a specific stimulation. Because of ethical reasons, people cannot use human for testing so that animals have been used as a replacement due to similarities between animal and human. In 1937, ?Elixir Sulfanilamide' was created by a pharmaceutical company in the USA and caused the deaths of more than a hundred people. The reason of deaths was found that was diethylene glycol (DEG) as a solvent of the medicine. DEG was poisonous to humans, but the company was not aware of this.
Notably, no animal testing was done before the product was allowed to sell (Hajar). Besides that, if we look animal and human in biological view, we will surprise that there are similarities that we cannot ever imagine such as lung, heart, kidney, intestine, bladder etc. and even in the same designs. 90% of veterinary medicines are the same as, or very similar to human's medicine. Moreover, it is interesting that we have 90% gene in common with a mouse that we can use to study gene and related diseases or treatments (The Animal). Because of these reasons, according to FDA, in five steps of the drug development process, in vivo is the second step that must be done to find out whether it has the potential to cause serious harm before testing on human(The Drug). Animal testing is one of an indispensable part in new medicine invention.
Human being and other animals are obviously different species. Animal rights advocates assume these species-differences as differences in respondent to a stimulation or a drug to persuade people to stop using animal test for medical purposes. Taking a healthy being from a completely different species, artificially inducing a condition that he or she would never normally contract, keeping him or her in an unnatural and distressful environment, and trying to apply the results to naturally occurring diseases in human beings is dubious at best(Berlatshy). Of course, different species do not have perfect similarities. Nevertheless, a lot of respondents of the animal were the same to human's respondents to a drug or a stimulation.
Unless the respondents were almost the same, there could not be a 90% similarity between veterinary medicine and human medicine(The Animal). Heart diseases and related diseases are deathly causes in the US. Studies with dogs contributed to our most basic understanding of how to manage heart disease. Techniques to diagnose the workings of the heart- electrocardiography, cardiac catheters, angiograms, and coronary blood flow measurement were developed through research using dogs as were surgical techniques such as cardiac bypass angioplasty, and heart transplants (The American). Undeniably, there are close similarities between human and animal in biological aspects which we reasonably use and get a lot of benefits in medical research.
Moreover, scientists are also humans which have emotions, love, and compassion upon the animal. By scientific innovations, scientists have been trying to use an alternative method for experimentation. Using animal is only when they have no any other choice. According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, scientists do have the alternatives to animal testing by the 3R principle which are Replace, Reduce and Refine. Alternative methods are supported by U.S law such as Animal Welfare Act, Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000, Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act(Alternatives). However, in some specific cases, the animal is the only choice. As a neuroscientist, using a non-animal model to study how the brain controls limbs are limit.
Only by using macaques to study, we achieved some understanding which relevant to human diseases (Baker). All of these policies are to make sure that alternative must be considered before the process. In the example of macaques, scientists cannot achieve anything if they just processed on cells or simulation because we need to study how the whole system acts, not a neural cell.
Some people claimed that alternatives should take place of animal experimentation. Human clinical and epidemiological studies, human tissue- and cell-based research methods, cadavers, sophisticated high-fidelity human patient simulators, and computational models are more reliable, more precise, less expensive, and more humane than animal experiments(Berlatshy). In spite of that, this is right but just haft of the truth. Because we cannot always have an alternative. As I wrote above, in some specific purposes, cases, animals are still the only choice. In vitro testing cannot replace animal testing altogether. The reasons for this are fairly straightforward: a drug might work fine on a cell in a test tube, but how will it work in a body? A test tube has no blood circulatory system, no liver, no brain, and no nervous system at all. A test tube cannot feel pain or get pregnant (Do). Haft of a truth is not a truth. Animal experimentation isn't able replaced completely, at least, until now.
Ordinarily, because of ethical and legal reasons, alternative methods which are challenging goals must be considered seriously. Despite this, animal experimentations should be continuous, especially in medical researches, because of the meaningful role base on biological similarities between animal and human and for some specific purposes, the animal is a unique choice. The denial of the importance of animals in research into the nature and treatment of infective diseases, and the insistence of animal rights groups that economic and social change is the sole cause of the decrease in morbidity and death from infection cannot be sustained (Botting).
Cite this page
Medicine Has Been Dramatically Development. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Benefited from Animal Testing
If you have ever taken any antibiotic or had a vaccine, you have benefited from animal testing: Research with animals led to vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, and tetanus. The world's first vaccine was tested on a cow in 1796 during the observation of milkmaids who caught cowpox, which is now called smallpox, from infected cow utters.
This disease was eradicated in 1980 with the help of lab animals. Looking at the more frequent viruses in our everyday lives like bacterial infections, which are extremely common and affect most people many times throughout their lives, today most of them are readily treatable with antibiotics such as penicillin. The effectiveness of penicillin and other antibiotics as treatments for bacterial infections was established through research using mice and other rodents. Scientists continue to use animals to determine what antibiotics are effective against specific organisms, their toxicity, and their potential side effects.
Medical researchers need to understand health problems before they can develop ways to treat them. Another significant vaccine that was discovered with the service of animals in medical research was the polio vaccine. Polio is a highly infectious disease that mainly affects children under the age of 5. It invades the nervous system and can cause permanent paralysis in a matter of hours. The polio vaccine which was tested on chimpanzees, reduced the global occurrence of disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to just 22 cases in 2017. Polio is now practically unknown in the USA and Europe and more than 16 million people have been saved from paralysis.
Animal Testing - ProCon.org. (2016, March 24). Another very important discovery was in the early 1920's when Frederick Banting found the hormone insulin in the pancreatic extract of dogs. He instituted that it significantly lowered the dog's blood glucose levels to normal. Banting and his medical student, Charles Best, continued working on their discovery and perfected it in 1922. They used it to successfully treat a young boy with severe diabetes and went on to win the 1923 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine. Roughly one million people in the world use insulin for their diabetes (Virginia, 2016). Thanks to lab animals, we now have important vaccines to treat everyday illnesses. (Rogers, K. 2014)
Cite this page
Benefited From Animal Testing. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
This Kind of Testing is being Unjustified
Testing on animals has been around since 384-322BC (Rachel Hajar), meaning animals have been suffering for a very long time. Scientists have been using this method to try out new medicines or new surgical techniques to save lives. What they do not get is that animals and humans do not have the same body chemistry, making it difficult for the tests to be accurate, with the new advances in technology: experiments should not require animals for such inhumane acts. Instead of using defenseless animals to do such horrible things, scientist should have designed more advanced machinery considering they already have the talent to make new things without needing the help of many resources.
This kind of testing is being unjustified; there has been multiple reports of suffering because of all the horrible experiences the animals have to go through. Other reports were the way these animals were living they were malnourished, some of the animals' heads were severely burnt and bleeding. A huge amount of money is thrown away to do unnecessary procedures. With this kind of money, we could use it to make alternatives to animal testing, invent new machines that will help reduce the lives of animals at risk. One-way scientist covers up what they have done to animals is by saying they are taken care of and they do not suffer any kind of pain. Since they are the ones with the white lab coats, of course, people are going to believe them.
Research has shown that in 2016 alone more than 4 million procedures have taken place, this has caused more than 820,812 innocent animals to die. They do not go through one procedure or one test, one animal can be tested as many as 2 times even if it is already in a lot of pain. Many of the animals used in these experiments are fish, rats, birds, primates, dogs, cats, and sometimes even horses. These animals endure torture that no animal should ever go through. Over 73% of all animals tested in 2016 were mice or small rodents. Scientist prefer to use animals with a non-human vertebrate and cephalopod such as octopus and/or squid. Using animals like these also bring non-effective results in tests, which is another reason it should stop. Octopus and squid do not have anything related towards the human body making them unreliable.
Tests are done on animals for many things: chemical, sprays, perfumes, medicine, and makeup. Many cosmetic brands are cruelty-free, and they still manage to have customers buy their products. The European Union has banned cosmetic testing because it is cruel to the animals and not required. Many other countries are following their steps in ending this type of testing or prohibiting brands that use them to sell anywhere in that country. Places like China require their make-up brands to test on animals to sell on their market.
Korea and Turkey have stepped back on the testing and they even consider ending it, which would be the good thing to do. Animals do not wear makeup or try to look pretty, so scientist should not force them to be the first ones to try out new products they do not need. It is not a requirement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to test new chemicals or any kind of product on animals, but researchers choose to do it. This makes it worse for the animals because they are not needed in the laboratories, they are wanted there to try out and make sure things come out as they are supposed to.
There are many other useful ways to find out about animals and how they do things, we do not need to dissect frogs or pigs to see the insides; we can find alternatives for this. As a person, you can help in many ways to stop animal abuse not just in labs but also in classrooms and other places around the world like zoos'. Before someone passes away, they can decide to donate their body to science for others to learn from, and they can also donate to charities who do not test on animals for any kind of medicine or any type of harmful chemicals and instead work hard to save them. When a kid is in a classroom and they want to dissect an animal, people can stand up and say no to defend the rights of the defenseless animal. Many more animals are being tested that the public does not know about. The people who are aware of this can help and put an end to this.
Dogs are also part of these cruel experiments especially beagles because they know how to tolerate pain a lot better than any other dog. More than 60,000 dogs undergo experiments each year; they are the ones who undergo more experiments than any other mammal. Dogs are cute, fluffy animals and everyone views them as wonderful little creatures, but nobody really talks about the horrible side of animal testing they go through or the torture they endure.
Beagles are the most common used dogs and there is no law that prohibits people from doing animal testing. There are people trying to put an end to all animal testing, it is quite hard when there are more people with it than against it. There have been campaigns, posters, marches, and so many more things to persuade people to join end animal testing and help to end all this cruel torture. No animals should have to wonder when the next test will be or when they will die so they will not suffer anymore. They need help and the more the public fights for animal rights the more chances that scientists and researchers will stop and free the animals and search better ways to test new products that are harmful to the animals.
Once scientists finish using the animal or the animal is close to dying, they throw it out and dispose of it. These people in white lab coats make everyone believe that the animals are safe and there is nothing to worry about, they are lying and do not what the public to know exactly what is going on inside these laboratories'. Animals suffer physical, emotional, and mental pain every single day they are locked in those metal cages. Since there are no laws saying this is illegal, more and more animals will be hurt and killed. These animals spend all their day wondering when the next test will be preparing themselves mentally that they will go through a lot of pain and suffering. This is extremely sad knowing that so many people love majority of these animals, and so badly they are treated.
When animal testing was becoming more common scientist used animals to test a drug for pregnant woman, so it could stop morning sicknesses. Doctors gave this medicine out and it backfired on them, many kids were born with defects and one mother died because of the drug. It is a fact that if scientist were to have used human like methods they would have gotten a lot closer to getting better results. Because of this happening, it also comes to show that we cannot rely much on animals to give out good and positive results, which makes it worse to keep using them when they do not have the same system as humans and cannot give us the results we need.
Because the animals do not give us presentable answers, scientists should put an end to testing and focus more on other ways to test things. It has been showed that because of the failed results many people have died or have gotten extremely sick, death rates would decrease drastically if researchers used more human like methods and leave animals out of it. The more doctors give out medicines or any type of antibiotic to patients that have been tested by animals, the more likely these patients are to get sick or even die.
Humans and animals do not have the same body chemistry, making it extremely difficult to get accurate results from animals and provides us with negative results. Since animal testing has been around for so long, people still think that is it ok to keep using defenseless animals to torture them to find out about a product and the harm it may do. Some places that have banned animal testing are inspiring other countries to stop and become cruelty-free, other things that are cruelty-free are some make-up brands, perfumes, and even household items.
It is not hard to buy and support cruelty-free products, it makes it better for the animals, some people think that because of the testing we have safer products which is not true. Animal testing should stop, no animal should go through this kind of pain. Since we keep developing more and more advanced technology every day, there is no reason animal testing should continue. Researchers have the machines and computers needed to no longer use animals, they should start letting animals go.
Cite this page
This Kind Of Testing Is Being Unjustified. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Testing is a Cruel and Useless
Nelly, a beagle puppy, had a very rough start since the day she was born. She was used for testing in a laboratory, she was sold for experimentation and was later abandoned. As time went by, she was shot and was left for dead with two other assassinated puppies in a locked cage with little space to breathe or move. They were left on the side of a lonely road, lost, somewhere in Florida. Nelly, the beagle, deserved better. All of the other animals used for testing, deserve better.Animal testing is a major problem around the US and around the world, it needs to be addressed.Preview 3 main points (1 point each = 3 points): animal testing, why is it wrong, how to stop itEstablish Credibility (1 points): As a pet owner, I was interested in the topic so I did further research.
I. First Main Point “ description of the problem (3 points): Animal testing is a cruel and useless, it does not work and only causes harm to hundreds of thousands of harmless animals.A. Subpoint: Animal testing is based when scientists use animals in studies and experiments in order to prove a theory or see how they react to a chemical or trial. Each year, millions of animals including dogs, cats, monkeys, and mice experience cruelty because of these tests and experiments. Throughout this time, the creatures have to breathe in test substances and run the risk that they are toxic.1. Sub-subpoint: As stated on the BBC website, scientists experiment on animals for basic research, investigating potential treatments for human disease, safety and quality control testing of drugs and to explore how organisms function. (Katsnelson, 2013)
Most people can agree that animal experimentation is not only outdated but it is immoral and painful as well. However, there are a lot of people who have wrong perception that this practice is necessary for medicine to keep developing and improving.
There are several cases that show what they have to go through and the cruelty tested animals experiment. For example, in the state of Virginia scientists forgot to remove one of the rats they used in their experiment out of the cage, and took it to a cage washing system. When the cages are washed, they reach temperatures higher than 180 degrees Celsius, causing the rat to suffer and ultimately die.
In another experiment, mice were put in a swimming pool, after a specific time interval researchers placed a wire net that drowned them and did not let them get out. They were underwater for about 30 seconds, to see the effects of underwater trauma. This is an unnecessary practice and torture for the test subjects. And like these, every day, hundreds of thousands of animals, including cats, monkeys, rabbits and dogs, are forced to suffer in laboratories and undergo burning and uncomfortable experiments.
One of the first disagreements over animal testing took place about 60 years ago with a published article about Pepper, a dog that was used as a test subject. Pepper was a farmer's dog that was kidnapped from his property and was later sold into experimentation. Scientists tried to place an experimental cardiac pacemaker in his body, which led to the dog dying.(Transition point) Furthermore, this is why animal testing is ineffective.II. Second Main Point - description of the cause or causes (3 points):
Animals are very different from human beings, making them unsuccessful test subjectsA. Subpoint: There are many variances between animals and people that make them poor models for humans, including anatomic and cellular differences.Sub-subpoint:
Several years ago, scientist found a relationship between cancer and tobacco use. There was strong data that backed up this information, so it was believed to be true.
Researchers used animal and tested them to see how their bodies would react to the tobacco and whether or not it caused them to have cancer. After testing it frequent times, the tobacco did not seem to produce cancer in the animals, so this theory was rejected. Therefore, warnings regarding the dangers of cigarettes and tobacco were rule as false for many years.
This shows that only a small portion of substances that are known to produce cancer in humans, cause cancer in animals as well, which makes them poor models.
There was another medicine that was used to treat arthritis. After being tested in monkeys several times it was found to be safe, therefore could be used in humans. This medicine has now caused more than three hundred and twenty thousand heart attacks and strokes and about one hundred and forty thousand deaths around the world.
According to cruelty free international, out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests. (Against Animal Testing, 2018)
About two years ago in Europe, a drug to treat Parkinson's disease was tested in animals to see if it was safe. It was ruled to be fine after it was given to four different species of animals, including mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys and they were all fine. However, when given to people it killed one volunteer and caused other four volunteers to suffer with severe brain damage, ruining their lives forever.
(Transition point) So what other methods can be used?II. Third Main Point “ description of the solution (3 ?? points):
There are other alternatives researchers can use instead of animal testing.A. Subpoint: There is no evidence that animal experiments were needed and essential in making major medical advances. If enough money and resources were dedicated to animal-free substitutes, other solutions could be used.
1. Sub-subpoint: According to www.peta.org, alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues, advanced computer-modeling techniques, and studies with human volunteers. Investigators have created organ on chips that can be used instead of animals. In these chips human cells are grown to do perform the functions of the organs and the organ system as well as to simulate the structure of them. (Peta, 2018)
With the new technology, we now have computer models that can show how diseases progress inside the body and models that mimic human biology. It has been found that these models are an accurate prediction of how medicines will react in humans, without having to use animals which most of the time are unreliable.
Also, there is a method called micro dosing, that can provide fundamental evidence on how safe an experimental drug is before giving them to humans, especially in large-scale trials. With this way of testing, volunteers are given a very small dose of the medicine and it is only one time. Then, they are monitored closely to see how it reacts in the body and the possible effects of the drug.
Mechanized human-patient simulators that are able to breathe, bleed, talk, and even die have shown to be better at teaching students than exercises that implicate using animals.(Transition point) In conclusion,Conclusion “ To Include:
Summary Statement (1 points): Animal testing is still a huge concern today that harms millions of animals per year; however, other alternatives such as organ-on chips, computer models and micro dosing can eradicate this problem.Revisit the Thesis (1 points): The evidence provided shows that animal testing is not effective, and that they are poor models for humans.Reviewed Three Main Points (1 point each = 3 points): animal testing, why is it wrong, how to stop itEnding Statement (5 points)“ try to finish with a BANG
So picture yourself in a place you don't know, locked up without any room for movement. People you do not know come and go every couple of hours and rub things into your skin that burns and makes it bleed. They put substances in your eyes that makes you go blind. Imagine being alone and helpless, with people who is waiting to see what makes you die. These are only a few things animals go through during testing, a change needs to be made.(3) APA Style
References
Against Animal Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2018, from https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing
Peta. (2018). Alternatives to Animal Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/
Katsnelson, A. (2013, June 10). Future - Will we ever... eliminate animal experimentation? Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130609-will-we-ever-end-animal-testing
Cite this page
Animal Testing Is A Cruel And Useless. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Softening of the Stereotypes
Kate Chopin, an American author, wrote during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries when the movement for women's liberation was taking place (Chopin XVII). When the movement began, two major stereotypes were created. The New Woman depicts women who are intelligent and innocent, yet empowered. The femme fatale depicts a woman who is desired by many men but only focuses on her own desires (Chopin XIII). To combat stereotypes and expectations for women at the time, Chopin wrote The Awakening in the mindset of Edna Pontellier, who disregards what society expects of her. Although Mrs. Pontellier is married to Lonce Pontellier, she is in love with two other men, Robert Lebrun, and Alce Arobin. By representing expectations of society through Mr. Pontellier, representing different stereotypes of women through Lebrun and Arobin, and showing Mrs. Pontellier's unconformity, Chopin uses The Awakening to contradict society and literature of her time (Chopin XIII).
Mr. Pontellier is a businessman who supports many of the expectations for women during the 1800s. For example, he expects Mrs. Pontellier to look after their children, Raoul and Etienne, and he often scolds her when he feels she is not doing her job well enough. He reproached his wife with her inattention, her habitual neglect of the children. If it was not a mother's place to look after children, whose on Earth was it? (Chopin 8). This quote shows that Mr. Pontellier expected his wife to care for their children since he felt he did not have time. This quote also shows that Mr. Pontellier demands respect from Mrs. Pontellier. He expects her to listen to his commands, and he treats her as a piece of property, which is representative of many marriages at the time (Married Women's Property Laws: Law Library of Congress). He shows this when he says, ?You are burnt beyond recognition'[...] looking at his wife as one looks at a valuable piece of personal property (Chopin 3). Through these actions and expectations, Chopin uses Mr. Pontellier to represent marriages and expectations in her time.
Chopin not only represents society's expectations of women through Mr. Pontellier's actions; she also represents the stereotypes of the femme fatale and the New Woman. To Mrs. Pontellier's first lover, Lebrun, she is the New Woman. Lebrun represents the portion of society that sees women as empowered, intelligent, and innocent. This can be seen when Lebrun interacts with Mrs. Pontellier, such as when he and Mrs. Pontellier are talking about what they might do at their vacation island, the Grand Isle. He says, We'll go wherever you like (Chopin 52). In sharp contrast to Mr. Pontellier, when Lebrun speaks with Mrs. Pontellier, he allows her more freedom such as choosing where to go. These details show that he not only loves her but he respects her in a way most men did not respect women at the time. By characterizing Lebrun in this way, Chopin represents the sector of her society that respects women and supports the revolution.
However, to Mrs. Pontellier's second lover, Arobin, Mrs. Pontellier is a femme fatale. She is desired by several men, her husband, Lebrun, and Arobin, yet she only follows her own desires to love Lebrun. At times, Mrs. Pontellier even openly rejected Arobin's affectionate gestures. One evening after getting home from the races with Arobin, he kisses her hand, and she quickly stands up and backs away. As Arobin leaves she feels, Somewhat like a woman who in a moment of passion is betrayed into an act of infidelity, (Chopin 119). She also thinks to herself, What would he think? (Chopin 119).
However, she is not thinking of what Mr. Pontellier would think. Instead, she is wondering what Lebrun would think, which shows that her actions are driven by her desires of Lebrun (Chopin 119). By using the femme fatale personification in combination with the mindset of Mrs. Pontellier, the reader understands her actions. It shows that Mrs. Pontellier is seeking to be able to express herself and be free from her husband. This makes her socially unaccepted acts more understandable, and they fight the stereotypes of the time period. Another way Chopin combats the nineteenth-century societal stereotypes is through Mrs. Pontellier's actions. Since the novel is written from her perspective, the reader finds it easier to sympathize with Mrs. Pontellier's feelings of oppression from the expectations Mr. Pontellier has for her. The expectation that women are the sole caretakers of the children is combatted because, Mrs. Pontellier was not a mother-woman, (Chopin 11). She did love her children, but, in an uneven impulsive way. She would sometimes gather them passionately to her heart, she would sometimes forget them (Chopin 28). Had Mr. Pontellier accepted that his wife was not a very matronly person and then helped her with the caretaking of their children, their relationship may have been more successful. With a successful and loving relationship, Mrs. Pontellier would have felt less of a need to seek out love in other places, such as from her other lovers, Arobin and Lebrun. By showing the Pontellier's relationship through Mrs. Pontellier's mind, the reader is able to understand how oppressive it is, and how society and Mr. Pontellier's actions affect Mrs. Pontellier.
The effects of the oppression Mrs. Pontellier has suffered are seen at the end of the novel when Mrs. Pontellier drowns herself off the shore of the Grand Isle. She does this because she cannot bear to live with her husband who will only accept her if she is what he wants her to be. However, she also knows that she cannot simply leave for another man because of her children. This is shown when she says to herself, To-day it is Arobin, to-morrow it will be someone else. It makes no difference to me, it doesn't matter about Lonce Pontellier, but Raoul and Etienne! (Chopin 176). This quote shows her eternal search for love and acceptance by the way she says that in the future she might acquire yet another man to love. It also shows that she does not care for her husband. In fact, she wants to leave him, but she knows she cannot leave her children with the disgrace society will push upon them. After this internal contemplation, she drowns by the Grand Isle because it was too much to bear that in no circumstances she and society would be appeased. This act, along with her reasons for it, shows what the effects of society can be. Since the 1800s, women have gained more rights, and they are no longer viewed as property (Detailed Timeline).
It is also common to see women in the workforce today. In a study done by the Center for American Progress, it was found that 42% of mothers are the primary workers of the household (Godfrey). Since mothers are beginning to do more work, it is more common to see fathers taking care of the children (Godfrey). Today women not treated as property, but rather they are treated as valuable members of society.
Today's society also pushes for more equal treatment of women. While society still has some stereotypes of women, those who believe in equal rights are actively working to combat them. Organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), fight against stereotypes about women. These organizations focus on helping women attain equality by advocating equal rights in education and employment. They also speak out against gender-based domestic violence, and physical and mental abuse from husbands. (ACLU). These organizations fight against stereotypes and advocate women's worth. Overall, in The Awakening, Chopin uses different characters to express different aspects of the nineteenth-century society. Through the actions of those characters, Chopin combats the stereotypes and expectations of women. Lebrun and Arobin each represent stereotypes of what people thought of women at the time, and Mr. Pontellier shows the expectations placed on women. Mrs. Pontellier's rebellious nature, and her final act of drowning by the Grand Isle, ties the story together and shows what the effects of an oppressive society can be.
Today, society is much different and women have many more opportunities, which can be seen through the contrast of today's society compared to the one Chopin writes about. Although society is still not perfect, many people support equality for women, and they are actively combatting stereotypes and expectations.
Works Cited
- ACLU. Women's Rights. American Civil Liberties Union, 2018, www.aclu.org/issues/womens-rights.
- Chopin, Kate, and Alyssa Harad. The Awakening. Awakening and Selected Stories of Kate Chopin, edited by Cynthia Brantley Johnson, Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2004, pp. VII-178.
- Detailed Timeline. National Womens History Project, www.nwhp.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/.
- Godfrey, Neale. The Stay-At-Home Dad Syndrome. Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 31 July 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/nealegodfrey/2017/07/31/the-stay-at-home-dad-syndrome/#322eddd61e2.
- Married Women's Property Laws: Law Library of Congress A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875, Charles Magnus, memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/property_law.html.
Cite this page
Softening Of The Stereotypes. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Experiments are Done Using Testing
Experiments are done using testing of many different species. Scientists use humans to determine certain things about society and use animals to test products, medications, or diseases. Such experiments can be ineffective or unnecessary due to these animals not even being able to attract the same diseases or disorders as many humans. With that being said, I argue that animal testing should not be tolerated under any circumstance because they are cruel and unreliable testing methods. Moral theories such as Utilitarianism and Deontology relate to the topic of animal testing and help me to enforce this movement. In this paper, I argue that the utilitarian stance on animal testing provides a superior argument about animal testing over the moral theory of deontology.
John Stuart Mill wrote Utilitarianism and is known as one of the most influential theories on society even 150 years after it was written. Utilitarianism or the Greatest Happiness Principle is defined, in The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems, as, actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, (Mill 98).
The most important part of this theory, I believe, is that to achieve the goal of happiness in a utilitarianism aspect, is to not only achieve the happiness of just the agent, but all of those who are concerned. This means that in a situation where more than one being, or living thing, all's happiness must be taken into consideration and accounted for. In an NCBI article titled Utilitarian and Deontological Ethics in Medicine, discusses utilitarian and deontological approaches that deal with conflicts and complications in medical ethics.
It states, In the utilitarian approach, decisions are chose based on the greatest amount of benefit obtained for the greatest number of individuals. It continues on to say, According to rule utilitarianism, a morally right decision is an action complying moral codes/rules leading to better consequences, (Mandal Ponnambath Parja paragraph 3). It is important to understand how the definition of utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of focusing on the happiness of all those that are concerned and not only the specified agent.
Immanuel Kant discusses good will and categorical imperative using deontological ethics in The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. Though he does not specifically define deontology in the text, it is defined by an Ethics Unwrapped article from the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas as, an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. This theory is associated with Kant because he believed that ethical actions that are seen as morally correct are related to moral laws such as refraining from lying, stealing, or cheating.
In the textbook, Kant discusses how we could act morally as a society and enforce good will overall. He sets out two tests for morally acceptable action, one being, actions are morally acceptable only when the principles that inspire them can be acted on by everyone consistently, and the second being a requirement to, treat humanity always as an end in itself, and never as a mere means. With these things being said, it is hard to determine the true definition of good and all of the abstractions that can come from these definitions.
Both moral theories help me to argue against the subject of animal testing in different ways. Utilitarianism is discussed in an extensive article titled, Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance. Gary Francione uses this article to explain animal rights along with utilitarianism while discussing the pros and cons of both topics. I will be focusing mainly on the cons of animal testing and the pros of utilitarianism as it pertains to the subject in order to build and shape my argument against animal testing.
Peter Singer has his own utilitarian theory that are similar to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, them being utilitarians as well. Singer believes that the consequences of the contemplated act are the ones that matter as opposed to those that follow. Francione writes, Pleasure and pain matter because they are a part of what humans and nonhumans desire or prefer or seek to avoid. In Animal Liberation, Singer argues that in assessing the consequences of our actions, it is necessary to take the interests of animals seriously and to weigh any adverse affect on those interests from human actions as part of the consequences of those actions.
I believe the most important part of this sections of the article is how Singer believes speciesism is discrimination just as sexism or racism is. This is an important part of my argument because this stresses how if we are not able to discriminate against humans, what makes it right to harm or take the lives of animals? Humans are not of a higher power over any other species and were never personally given the right to take the lives of other living things unless it was a necessity to survive.
One may argue that animal testing is done in order to allow humans to endure a longer life by finding ways to cure cancer or other life-threatening diseases, but with the technology that has evolved, we must use those resources to prevent health and medical issues instead of taking the lives of other species. The article continues on the say, For Singer, the rightness or wrongness of conduct is determined by consequences, and not by any appeal to right. Francione then writes, Singer opposes most animal experimentation, only because he thinks that most animal experiments produce benefi
ts that are insufficient to justify the animal suffering that results. This is also an important part of the article because this helps to emphasize how animal testing does not have an end result of happiness for all of those concerned.
The Hastings Center Report from The Ethics of Animal Experimentation and Research, written by Strachan Donnelley and Kathleen Nolan explored the complex ethical issues surrounding animal testing in depth. With deontology focusing solely on the immediate decision of whether an action is good or bad, ignoring the following consequences, Tom Regan is a contemporary deontologist that believes animals have a significant moral status and that any animal testing or experimentation is immoral and must be avoided at all costs. The article reads,
The deontological emphasis on respect and justice for the individual often underlies the judgment that it is wrong to be callous or casual about the use of animals even where those attitudes don't result in actual harm, (Donnelly Nolan 6). This is important to understand because deontology explains that even if there is no harm caused during the process of animal testing, it is still immoral to act on them for experimentation.
Personally, I believe the utilitarian argument against animal testing is a better argument. In the article I used to create my deontological argument, Donnelly and Nolan also discussed the utilitarian views. It reads, Probably the most common justification is that the benefits gained from such research far outweigh the suffering of experimental animals, (Donnelly Nolan 4-5). It continues to say on page 5 that, Unless one is prepared to argue that animals simply lack the capacity for morally relevant interests and desires, any consistent form of utilitarianism that includes pleasures, suffering, or interests in its account of good must accord sentient animals a significant moral status.
Overall, the utilitarian argument is a better argument as opposed to deontological theories because the definition on its own speaks for all species. Anyone who is involved must be accounted for in any action to promote happiness in utilitarianism while deontology focuses on good or bad actions without focusing on the following consequences. If animal testing was to be done to find a cure for cancer, and the animal ended up losing its life, a deontologist would say that the decision was good or moral because they found a cure for cancer and did not focus on the animal's life following the experiment. A utilitarian would make the decision to not test on the animal because it would cause the opposite of happiness for all species or living things involved.
I personally believe that the human species should refrain from acting on animals for the sake of their own species. The utilitarian position provided a clear and concise argument against animal testing while deontology leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
Cite this page
Experiments Are Done Using Testing. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Testing has been Around
Animal testing has been around since the year BC. We don't take in account where the items we purchase come from and the process it went through. Animal testing has cured and found new treatments to cure diseases such as tuberculosis, meningitis, diphtheria, ect. However, many treatments tested on animals do not work for humans, 9 - 10 experimental drugs fail in clinical studies (Michael O. Leavitt), The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse (Dr. Richard Klausner), ect. Even though a large amount of people propose that testing aids humans quality of life, it harms and damages animals life in the process.
From makeup to new treatments, many of these inventions have been created with a cost. According to UCLA, scientists were able to introduce a deep brain stimulation, a production used to treat numerous of disabling neurological symptoms. With this, scientist were able to find new leads for parkinson's diseases. Also, the development of artificial hearts was possible because of animal testing. Valves were needed for the passage of blood which caused Albert Starr to create a caged ball valve that was implanted in dogs.
This resulted in the improvements of the caged ball valves due to the fact that many dogs only survived ten days and with the upgrade, many survived up to 13 months. These long survival times enabled examination of how effective the valves are in the living heart, even one year after the implantation. Additionally, with the aid of mice, UCLA was able to discover a missing gene in infants which causes childhood blindness. With those findings, it helped forward a cure and a treatment for the disease. Lastly, UCLA used mice to find a more effective way for the usage of radiation for cancer patients. With there finding, many cancer patients are now open to radiation treatments. Therefore, these four discoveries illustrate of what animal testing has done for the quality of human life.
There are numerous amounts of reasons why people decide and choose to test an animals. For instance, chimpanzee and mice dna are extremely similar to human dna which essentially means there hearts, kidneys, lungs, ect function like humans. Also, since animals and humans are so biologically similar, they have a great risk to many of the same conditions and illnesses us humans get including heart disease, diabetes, ect.
In addition, mice and rats are mostly used in most findings because of how short there life cycle is. Laboratory mice and rats tend to only live up to two or three years at most which helps scientist study the effects of treatments or new discoveries. Lastly, cosmetic products is apart to this type of testing due to having many productions tested to see how safe they are for humans. The US Food and Drug Administration needs to approve products to "assure the safety of a product or ingredient." and China requires that all cosmetics need to be tested on animals so they can be sold and distributed in their countries, otherwise they will not be. Lastly, religion plays a part towards animal testing. The Bible states in Genesis 1:26: "And God said... let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
The BBC states the teaching of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim explains that animal testing is fine as long as there is no unnecessary pain triggered and there is a real possibility of benefits towards humans. In other words, we can justify these findings have made many improvements in our lives and animals but at a cost towards animals.
Many might argue testing on animals assists on new findings and improves life quality for humans but most don't know the effect it has towards the animals. For instance, in many cases, experiments tend to not work out as planned which results in wasting the lives of animals. Also, 94% of drugs that pass animal tests doesn't mean it will work for humans, most of them fail in human clinical trials which means not everything animals are tested on are safe.
According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, more than one hundred stroke drugs that were effective towards animals have failed in humans, and over eight five HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well for animals. Also, testing on animals doesn't just improve human life but animal life. If scientists were to have never tested on animals to help find vaccines and cures then countless animals would have died from feline leukemia, rabies, canine parvovirus, and infectious hepatitis virus, just naming a few. Lastly, even though animals help scientist move forward, there have been new findings demonstrating human cells are better subjects to test on instead of animals.
Overall, we as people need to realize animals don't volunteer to be treated like slaves. Without animal testing, human life would be completely different. We would not have vaccines, new inventions, cures, new findings, ect. We don't consider the process and pain it took for us to receive many creations that we take for granted such as treatments, makeup, medication, ect. We need to face reality and see what animals go through in scientific facilities and other countries so we can live our best lives while they live theres with pain and misery.
Cite this page
Animal Testing Has Been Around. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Testing has been a Part of Pharmaceutical
Animal testing has been a part of pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and toxicity research for many years. Many innocent animal lives are being taken for the sake of science, when it is unnecessary to do so. Scientists have had the knowledge of human embryonic stem cells for research for years and yet they decide to use sentient animals instead. Even though animal testing has proven beneficial in the past, scientists should use human embryonic stem cells to do research instead of animals because it would not only be cheaper, but it would also be more accurate and morally appealing.
If scientists were to start using human embryonic stem cells instead of animals, it would save the american taxpayers billions of dollars. There are so many more important thing that the government should be spending tax money on, but they choose to instead pay for useless, expensive testing. Bethany Hope Rishell states in her article Harming Humans via Animal Analysis: A Utilitarian Critique of Regulatory Requirements and Emphases in the Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic, and Industrial Chemicals Industries that a simple toxicity test frequently costs about $30,000.
She then goes on to state, More complex testing, such as carcinogenicity tests, cost closer $1 million. These numbers do not account for what the scientists that conduct the tests are being paid. These numbers could be easily lowered if scientists decided to start testing on hESCs instead of animals. If these numbers were to be lowered, it would significantly lower the costs of medicine and medical treatments.
Another pro to stem cell testing is that it would be a lot more accurate than testing on an animal. Logically speaking, the way humans react to certain things is significantly different than the way a rat or mouse would. So, why would scientist still use animals to test life saving medications and medical treatments meant for humans? According to Rishell, animal testing has delayed finding the cure for certain diseases such as cancer and diabetes.
An example of this is when she mentioned, while humans cannot live without insulin regulating their blood sugar, mice, including mice genetically engineered specifically for the study of diabetes, can survive without insulin. This example means that all the time and money spent on testing mice for the cure to diabetes was to no avail. Another example of animal testing being unreliable is when scientists were attempting to test on animals for heart disease and other heart problems, they could not successfully create medications to help cure these diseases. Eventually it was discovered that cardiovascular disease almost never develops in any other species other than homo sapiens. There is no denying that animals cells work very different than that of a humans.
Lastly, testing on human embryonic stem cells would be more morally appealing than testing on a sentient animal. The main difference between hESCs and animals is that an hESC cannot feel pain unlike an animal which can. Of course, it could be argued that an hESC is or could be a living person, but animals are already living creatures. This is where the political debate comes in. According to Davor Solter, the author of the article From Teratocarcinomas to Embryonic Stem Cells and Beyond: a History of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, the scientific community is becoming more politically driven.
Because there are so many people in politics that believe that hESCs are living humans, they are letting these animals suffer instead. Science should not be about politics, but about doing whatever is needed to come up with medicines, cures, and treatments to help whoever needs it. Morally speaking, everyone can agree that researchers should not inflict pain on something that can actually feel it, and risk the results not being accurate, but instead test on something that cannot feel pain and would give more accurate results. Testing on hESCs give scientists more accurate results and less room for error.
Some may argue that animal testing has been beneficial in the past and science should switch practices if the ones they use work. The main problem with this counterclaim is that even though animal testing has gotten science pretty far, as I had previously stated it has not been reliable. The more that scientists discover about the human body and the diseases that can inhabit it the more complex and in depth the research on these diseases need to be
Cite this page
Animal Testing Has Been A Part Of Pharmaceutical. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
How do Stereotypes Impact on Teenagers?
Introduction
Today’s youth have been told ever since they were very young that teenagers are violent, rude, and compulsive. Young children are still very reliant on adults which creates a deep trust to form between them and a need to conform to those adults’ view of the world. Therefore, when they are exposed to negative teenage stereotypes by adults around them or the media, they can easily accept it as a fact. Thus, when those children become teenagers, they are more likely to feel the need to conform to the stereotypes.
Teens can be very strong, powerful activists and problem solvers. However, constantly putting them down for not having anything worthwhile to say is a loss to society. These stereotypes did not rest well with many teenagers throughout the country. “One youth from Montreal, aged 15, sums up the feelings of many teens: ‘Today’s youths are intelligent but some adults don’t seem to think so. We are people too. Youths are discriminated against and that’s not right. To get through to young people, you have to listen to them, trust them, and respect them. The way I look and the music I listen to does not make me a “bad” person. I am my own person.’ (E., 2011).” Through this, she implies that she had been looked down upon by others due to the way she presents herself and her physical appearance. This is an example of a situation where assumptions are being made before even getting to know anything about her. In addition, the mere fact that this girl decided to speak up against a flaw in our society in an effort to spread awareness about this topic displays a higher maturity than what she claims is expected of her. Thus, this girl, along with many, many more, is an example of a mature individual who commands respect. However, these negative stereotypes cause them to feel bad about who they are as people which is unacceptable.
Many teens try to break these stereotypes by being very conscience of where they go and what they do in public. According to Shanyang Zhao, a professor of sociology at Temple University, “Through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors, others convey to us, either purposefully or unwittingly, their appraisals of our self-presentations, which in turn shape how we view ourselves (Zhao, 2005).” This illustrates how people express how they feel about someone through nonverbal, and thus socially acceptable manners. This causes teens to become more conscious of what they do in public and how their actions may be perceived. For example, they won’t look at their phone in public or steer clear of typical teenage hangout spots. They have no choice but to put all that effort in in order to be given the same respect as any adult receives automatically. Teenagers who suffer from being stereotyped based on their race and age, remain affected negatively today both socially and healthwise.
Racial Stereotyping
One form of stereotyping that affects teens is stereotyping based on their race. Each race comes with its own set of different stereotypes. For example, some of these stereotypes include not being intellectual or hardworking. This is extremely difficult for people to experience because it is making them feel bad about something they can not change and have no control over. One's race is part of their identity; who they are or who they choose to be, meaning, other people’s perception of one’s race is their perception of an aspect of who that specific individual is. This can stay with someone for their whole life because it will cause them to devalue themselves if they buy into the stereotype. Therefore, expressing one’s negative perception of who someone is, not only is insulting the person, but also making them feel bad about their own identity.
According to Corey Columb, a professor in the psychology department at Prairie View A&M University, states, “Across two studies we examined whether exposure to Obama, a positive and counter-stereotypic exemplar, reduced implicit anti-Black evaluative bias and racial stereotyping. Additionally, we evaluated whether reactions to exposure to Obama were moderated by people’s explicit feelings about Obama or their perceptions of his stereotypicality. In Study 2, we extended our scope to evaluate whether a positive but stereotypic Black exemplar, Kobe Bryant, had similar effects as Obama on implicit responses. We found that exposure to either Bryant or Obama, following exposure to negative Black exemplars, caused a reduction in implicit anti-Black evaluative bias and racial stereotyping, relative to a control condition.” Through these findings, one can assume that stereotypes are made based on the type of information a person is presented with about a certain group of people. In addition, we can assume that people start to destroy these negative stereotypes about different races when they receive information and learn more from interracial influencers who shed light on the positive aspects of a certain racial group.
Social Lense
Negative stereotyping occurs when people who do not have experiences with or are not exposed to a certain group of people in their daily lives are shown that group of people in a negative light; usually through means of media. Through that, assumptions are formed, not necessarily based on fact but on media portrayals. The stimulus material, Attitude Towards Muslim Women in the West offers one example of how people are affected by stereotyping and prejudice. This particular passage discusses how the western world viewed muslim women based on media portrayals and the actions of a radical minority. This can be compared to the stereotyping of teenagers, although teens would likely be more dramatically affected. This is because of the emotional and psychological changes they experience at that age. It leads to a stage of insecurity and constant self awareness, making them more reliant on others’ approval as validation. Much like what Corey Columb previously discussed, the journal of social cognition states, “African Americans’ self-concept is susceptible to pervasive cultural stereotypes. However, exposure to in-group exemplars such as Barack Obama as a prominent, admired African American may be accessible enough to attenuate the detrimental effects of stereotypes. In two experiments, African-American adolescent... and adult… participants were provided with information about outstanding successes and societal contributions of Obama as a single in-group exemplar... or multiple in-group exemplars... Then, participants reported the extent to which they associated their self-concept with stereotypes.
The Pilot Experiment supported an ‘Obama effect’—African-American adolescents exhibited less self-stereotyping after exposure to Obama, when compared to those in a control condition. The Main Experiment demonstrated that exposure to Obama or multiple exemplars yielded less self-stereotyping, but only among strongly identified African Americans. Implications for the importance of role models in combating the effect of stigma on the self-concept are discussed (Rivera, 2016).” This demonstrates how teenagers stereotype themselves less often when they have a role model who challenges stereotypes that they suffer from. This can give teenagers more confidence which can help them overcome social anxiety and overall have a better, more positive outlook on life. This could help them succeed in their daily lives simply because they believe they can.
Mental Health
Mental health has been known to affects one’s physical and emotional wellbeing. When someone believes something to be true, they will change to accommodate it. This process may not necessarily be an intentional transition but it occurs subconsciously nonetheless. This is what happens when teens begin to believe the stereotypes being imposed on them. This leads to a lower self esteem and can lead to the development of things like anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. These have become very prominent in our present day society. According to Mental Health America (MHA), 13.2 percent of the United States population identifies as black or african american and 16 percent of that group of people has been diagnosed with a mental illness in the past year alone. From this statistic, one can clearly see that mental health is a very prominent issue. Having that many people being affected within a specific race can lead to the assumption that that common factor is more than just a coincidence.
According to Erin M. Rodriguez, a psychologist, “Externalizing problems during adolescence interfere with positive development and increase risk for other mental health problems, such as depression... Strong interpersonal skills and positive parenting reduce risk for depression… and strong interpersonal skills may be especially protective in the context of high levels of externalizing problems by counteracting other risks conferred by externalizing problems (Rodriguez, 2015).” Much like what Zhao stated, Rodriguez discusses how outside influences can have an effect on teens and specifically how their mental health can be negatively affected. On the other hand, positive outside influences such as the ones Rodriguez mentions, can make teens less prone to depression. These positive influences do not necessarily have to be about the fact that they are teens but can be associated with any aspect of their identity. Teens can experience a boost in self esteem and ultimately improve their mental health and lead better, more positive lives.
Conclusion
One solution to this issue is to create a supportive environment with one’s peers. Gathering a group of friends or classmates that one is comfortable with is very important. These people would be about the same age, and therefore, going through similar problems they can relate to each other on. This creates a form of support group where teenagers can find comfort and acceptance in their personal lives. However, a limitation to this is that not all people would be as supportive as others. An implication to this solution is that the group of teenagers’ frustration with being stereotyped can mold their ‘support’ group into a group where resentment lingers towards those who stereotyped them.
Another solution is to promote self empowerment movements on social media. This would be very effective because social media is a platform where positive thinking and reassurance can thrive. It is also very convenient due to the constantly developing technology that has made it possible to access social media almost anywhere. Through self empowerment movements, teens can find people outside their personal circle who are experiencing similar things and support each other. Having someone you do not know on your side can be very endearing to many people. This is because having an unbiased source tell them that it is not their fault can be much more relieving than someone they know and can not necessarily tell if they are just trying to make them feel better. A limitation to this solution is that promotions would cost money. An implication to this solution is that an excess of self pride my reach a point where it is perceived as arrogance. This can lead to the opposite extreme where they may bring others down; beginning the cycle all over again.
Thus, teenagers are facing ageist and racial stereotyping that is negatively affecting their mental health and social abilities.
Cite this page
How Do Stereotypes Impact On Teenagers?. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Benefits of Animal Testing
The use of animals for medical research and testing is being subjected to heated debates due to the inability of different stakeholders to strike a balance between the benefits of using the animals and the pain that is subjected to the animals in various scientific medical research. There is indeed substantial evidence that the use of animals for medical research and testing has led to tremendous advancement in the discovery of hugely beneficial drugs and still plays a critical role in the understating of different human diseases.
Additionally, the use of animal testing has also provided an accurate mechanism for validating the effects of various medical and pharmaceutical products on the human body system. Despite the vast benefits of using an animal for medical testing, intensive lobbying is being made by animal rights activists to have the animal research completely abolished because they firmly believe that the pain and cruelty that the experiment does to the animals is entirely unnecessary. This paper, therefore, tries to achieve a middle ground on this vital topic by highlighting some of the benefits of animal testing in medical research and at the same time point out the critical environmental implication of animal testing.
Medical scientists generally would not prefer causing pain and injury to animals if at all the pain can be prevented. Most scientists concur that animals research and testing should be undertaken within a strict ethical framework which involves a detailed assessment of the potential effect to the animal before the testing ( Matthiensen et al. 2003). Animal testing and research remains very critical to the advancement of research in pharmaceutical and medical sector.
This assertion was confirmed by the survey that was carried out by medical general practitioners 2006. In this survey, it was established that 96% of medical and pharmaceutical research experts believe that animal testing has significantly contributed to the research and discovery of drugs. The survey further affirms that 88% of medical doctors prefer pharmaceutical drugs to be tested on animals first before tried on human beings. This is to identify with high accuracy the potential effects of the pharmaceutical drugs before trying it on the human body( Gannon, 2007).
Secondly, animal testing is significant in obtaining accurate medical research data that has been used to determine with the highest accuracy the potential effect of various drugs on the human body system. An expert survey by European for medical progress denoted that 84% of pharmaceutical and medical experts believes that use of animal testing has resulted into more accurate results which have led to the discovery of medicines that are potentially beneficial to the human being. Similar research by General practitioners also confirms that the use of animal research and testing improves the reliability and accuracy of medical research data (Gannon, 2007).
Also, the use of animal research and testing has been confirmed to be very affordable and speeds up the medical research process. For example, the massive amount of investments that have been made by various pharmaceutical companies in discovering alternative methods of medical research and testing. The findings from these pharmaceutical companies have proven that alternative technologies that can suitably replace animal testing are costly and requires a lot of time for testing.
Even in regulatory toxicology that is usually straightforward, the alternative technologies needed more than 20 tests to determine the potential risks and effects of new substances. Additionally, the introduction of alternative technologies requires validating and authentication by relevant organizations some of which are international accreditation institutions. The process of approving and certifying the non-animal techniques is always bureaucratic and not favorable to the dynamics within the medical research environment that at times requires a speedy process (Frame, 2005).
Lastly, the use of animal testing can be justified in specific research by weighing out the potential benefits against the costs and effects of such medical research. This is especially true in scenarios where the risks of the new drugs to human beings outweighs the pain caused to animals to address the potential risks. Also, the use of animal testing and research can be justified when the new pharmaceutical drug is potentially impactful to human beings. For example, drugs used in the treatment of malaria and cancer that are currently prevalent in the world. In these cases, the use of animal testing is thus recommended since the benefits are much higher than the pain exposed to the animals.
In conclusion, we as human beings have a responsibility to protect the animals since that is what defines us as humans. On the other hand, developing drugs to tackle certain diseases requires the use of animals for testing which makes specific animal testing experiments morally ethical. Based on these two extremes- the need to obtain accurate medical research data on certain drugs and the imperative duty of animal protection- we need to be pragmatic and strike a balance. Animal research and testing will only be justifiable if there is great precaution undertaken not to harm or expose the animals to unnecessary cruelty. Medical scientists therefore has responsibility of ensuring that any animal that they use for research should be protected. Additionally, further research on reduction and replacement technologies will reduce the use of animal for medical research and testing to only very necessary experiments where the use of animals is inevitable (Flint 2005).
Cite this page
Benefits Of Animal Testing. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Female Stereotypes Portrayed in Disney Movies
Recently, the Disney princess line has taken criticism for promoting passiveness, and the damsel-in-distress characterization; basically, endorsing female stereotypes (Coyne, Linder, Rasmussen, Nelson, Birbeck, 2016). This is important because if parents were aware of the gender stereotypes that Disney may portray in their films, they could essentially limit the gender stereotype exposure to children at a young age. Research has found that many different stereotypes have continued to be present in Disney films over the years despite a few occurrences of more positive representation (Haddock, Lund, Tanner, Towbin, Zimmerman, 2004). While research has highlighted this fact, not enough research has been done to change the association Disney has with these gender stereotypes (England, Descartes, Collier-Meek).
Disney has been seen to have an amplified gender world view, where male and female characters show their significant differences (Hoerrner, 1996). The top 20 Disney films according to IMDb that we have rated are as follows: The Lion King (1994), Beauty and the Beast (1991), Zootopia (), Aladdin (1992), Tangled (2010), Big Hero 6 (2014), Mulan (1998), The Little Mermaid (1989), Moana (2016), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1938), The Jungle Book (1967), Robin Hood (1973), Frozen (2013), Pinocchio (1940), Alice in Wonderland (1951), The Emperor's New Groove (2000), Cinderella (1950), Sleeping Beauty (1959), Bambi (1942), and Peter Pan (1953). These Disney films are especially important in regard to the information children can learn from watching them. If a child watches enough media throughout the day and multiple times during the week, there may be a possibility that gender stereotypes are being exposed. Previous research shows that engagement with Disney princess media/products, the female gendered stereotypical behavior was much more prevalent than amongst those without it (Coyne., et al, 2016). After taking this previous research into consideration, we can see that these films can play an important role in a child's learning about gender and can have a negative impact when it comes to the older films and child development.
In our study, we plan to show whether female gender stereotyping has changed over the years throughout the most popular Disney movies. This is extremely important due to the fact that most children in present time gain their knowledge through media, which is having a significant impact on development. In the present study, we specifically have researched the degree to which female main characters conform to gender stereotypes in newer Disney movies more frequently than in older Disney movies. We hypothesized that older movies have shown less female main characters, and these female main characters act more stereotypical in their gender roles as well.
Method
For our content analysis, we chose to use the top twenty Disney films as determined by IMDb ratings. These films ranged from the years of 1937 to 2016. Each researcher in our group reviewed each film. Each of the main female Disney characters were identified by the gender pronouns (she, her, herself, etc.) used in context. After we identified each female main character, we used a Likert-type scale to rate how conforming (or not conforming) they were to our specified gender stereotype characteristics.
There were two dependent variables in this study. The first dependent variable was when each movie was premiered. We reviewed the top 20 Disney films between the years of 1937-2016, in order to get a good range of popular old and new films. The second dependent variable was the ratings that each chosen Disney female main character was given by every one of our researchers independently. Main characters were identified as female when the characters were referred to with female pronouns, or whether they referred to themselves with female pronouns. The ratings we used consisted of assigning a number, 1 through 5, that best fits that character in terms of conforming to female gender stereotypes. Our group has translated the scale as the following: 1 = conforming, 2 = slightly conforming, 3 = neutral, 4 = slightly non-conforming, 5 = non-conforming. We agreed that the characteristics of conforming female gender stereotypes include characteristics such as: damsel in distress, caring, emotional, easily scared, etc. Each researcher then rated each of them with the scale explained above.
Independently, each researcher decided who the female main characters were and rated them according to their roles in the films. The ratings consisted of assigning a number, 1 through 5, that best fits that character in terms of conforming to female gender stereotypes. For example, a character was rated a 1 if they showed signs of being physically weak, submissive, passive, etc. On the other hand, a character was rated a 5 if they showed signs of being physically strong, courageous, independent, etc. A 3 was often assigned for female main characters who were both conforming yet non-conforming at the same time (showing signs of both).
Results
Our research group ran a correlational analysis in order to see if there was a significance between the year the movies were released and the rating averages between each of us. The correlation between the year the Disney movies were released, and our rating averages were not significant, r (17) = .291, p = .258. Our analysis mean of all movies and ratings were reported as 3.1, and the standard deviation was 1.34. To put in other words, on average, the female main characters in the Disney films were about neutral (not conforming, yet not nonconforming) in terms of conforming to stereotypes.
What this means is that there was no significant relationship between the year of the movie and how stereotypical the main Disney female characters portrayed their gender roles over time. In other words, since the correlation wasn't significant, we could get results that look like this at random too frequently for our liking. Also, when going through the list of Disney films and deciding which female main character we would rate, we had to take out the films that had no female main characters at all. This way we would only be analyzing just the females and not the males.
It is worth mentioning that we, as a group of researchers, had great interrater reliability between all of our scores. The results of the Cronbach's Alpha were .929, which means that we all tended to agree with each other on how stereotypical each female character was. Gender messages in Disney movies have become less obviously prescriptive (Haddock., et al, 2004). Although gender messages have become less obviously prescriptive, they still remain, as we have seen in our results.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to identify how the female characters are portrayed in regard to gendered stereotypes in selected Disney movies over time. We predicted that older movies portrayed female characters more stereotypically and had fewer female main characters than in newer Disney movies. Contrary to our hypothesis, the rest of our results did not support our hypothesis. There was no significance difference between the year the Disney films were released and each female main character rating. Therefore, we concluded that Disney female main characters are not portrayed as less gender stereotypical over the years. In a different study based on princess stereotype roles, the results suggest that the princesscharacters do not all show traditional female gender stereotypes, and these stereotypes are not consistent (England., et al, 2011). These researchers of this different study show that after doing their content coding analysis, they found that all of the Disney movies show some sort of gender stereotypes one way or another (England., et al, 2011). Unlike the results from this similar study, in which all female main character's gender roles being slightly less conforming as time progresses, our results have shown that these female main character gender roles were not more or less conforming over time.
We believe that the reasons for our results not matching our hypothesis has to do with our limitations. For example, one limitation on our study would be the sample size. We have such a small sample of Disney movies, and maybe our results would have been significant if we had a larger selection of Disney movies to rate. Another limitation would be flipping a coin to choose which female main character we were going to rate. If the coin would have landed on, for instance, a princess instead of a witch, we may have been able to achieve more significant results as well due to different ratings. Also, some of the moviesthat had to be taken out due to no female main characters could have affected our results, leaving us with an even smaller sample size. We also could have taken into account these certain films, and how they may play a part in our hypothesis, instead of just taking them out of the ratings completely. The last limitation would be the way each one of us individuals saw a certain character separately. If we all used the same scale to rate these characters, but saw the characters in different ways, this would have made our analysis biased.
Some future directions our research group could possibly look into would be looking at not just the female main characters, but the male main characters and gender stereotypes as well. Choosing and rating the male main characters in Disney movies might have allowed us to compare the females to in regard to stereotypes, perhaps supporting our hypothesis. We wish that we could have looked into a bigger sample for Disney films, so we could have way more characters to rate across many different years. Future researchers should be more objective and more deliberate on which Disney movies are selected. Some of the more popular Disney movies in more recent years may be the ones which have less conforming gender-stereotype characters, whereas popular Disney movies in earlier years may have more conforming gender-stereotype characters.
In conclusion, our results demonstrate that there is no evidence of Disney becoming more or less stereotypical in their female main characters. It appears as if Disney was not progressive in its stereotypical portrayal over the years of 1937-2016. Therefore, it is still not clear if Disney is willing to change their representations of female gender stereotypes from damsels-in-distress to more outgoing, adventurous, and courageous women.
Cite this page
Female Stereotypes Portrayed In Disney Movies. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Animal Testing is Commonly Used
Abstract
Animal testing is commonly used for scientific or commercial testing nowadays. However, there are many different views from different people some may think that is good but some may think it is unacceptable. The use of animal testing results in some ethical issues that make it become a controversial issue.Within this essay, the principle of utilitarianism and deontology will be introduced. Also, we will show that how do the principle apply in animal testing. According to two different theories, different answers will be presented. Both theories show that animal testing uses for scientific or commercial testing is acceptable. It will then conclude that the use of animals to test the scientific or commercial should be accepted as this will bring more benefit to human and the community.
1. Introduction
The essay seeks to discuss whether the use of animals for scientific or commercial testing is acceptable. And under the rules of utilitarianism, animal testing is considered as a moral action which can brings the greatest happiness to the society, since it does not violate the principle of the utility. Besides, under the rules of deontology, animal testing is considered as an immoral action which destroy the moral values. In order to establish the argument, it start to introduce what is animal testing and its current usage. Utilitarianism and deontology will be introduced. It will then move on to the argument on what problems were resulted by animal testing and whether animal testing violate the principle of utility and deontology. At the end, it can be said that animal testing is considered as morally right.
2. Background Information
2.1What is animal testing?
An animal test is any scientific experiment or test in which a animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting damage. In animal experiments, animals would be injected or feed with probably harmful substances, exposed to radiation and forced to inhale toxic gases. Also, the lab resistant may surgically removing animals' organs or tissues to deliberately cause damage and subjecting animals to frightening situations to create anxiety and depression. Only vertebrate animals such as mammal, birds and fish, and some invertebrates such as octopuses are defined as ?animals' by European legislation governing animal experiments regulations.
2.2 Current usage of animal testing
Animal testing is usually used for scientific and commercial testing. Animal are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial and health care uses. It can help us understand our own bodies and how they work. Also, animals are used to see whether new chemicals have harmful effects, such as finding out whether a chemical causes cancer or illness to our body.
3. Utilitarianism
3.1What is utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism states that one thing is ethical, or good when it develops the best quantity of good for the best variety of individuals. It is a theory of standardizing ethics that asks whether a specific action is good or bad, moral or immoral. They answer this question with an economic examination that focuses on human lives and says that those actions that build individuals happy and profit for them are good. As an example, a utilitarian could ask whether or not it's moral for politicians to pay billions of dollars on campaign advertisement. He or she would examine that money could have been better spent on something else.
3.2What is the principle of utility?
The principle of utility states that the most ethical action is that the action that has pleasure or happiness for the most people. Actions are right if they manufacture the greatest pleasure. Actions are wrong if they produce a lot of pain than pleasure to a lot of people.In utilitarianism,goodis outlined as the existence of pleasure and the absence of pain. This is can be calledutility. Hence, utility may be a philosophical theory. Recall that a hedonist believes that the great life consists exclusively within the pursuit and experience of enjoyment or happiness.
The feelings of enjoyment and pain are biological events involving our central system, that controlled by our neural structure. We obviously experience pleasure after we perform certain acts that fulfill biological functions like eating, drinking, and having sex. We also experience pleasure after we perform certain intellectual activities, like reading a philosophy textbook, playing piano, or drawing a picture. However, but not forever, experience pleasure when we do the right thing. Conversely, we experience pain when these functions are left unrealized.
4. Deontology
4.1 What is deontology?
Deontology is that the branch ofethicsin which individuals outline what is morally right or wrong by the actions themselves, instead of pertaining to the results of these actions, or the character of the one who performs them. The word deontology comes from theGreek roots ?deon', which implies duty science. Thus, deontology is the "science of duty."
Deontological ethical systems are distinguished by a focus upon and strict adherence to independent moral rules or duties. To create the correct moral decisions, one must understand what those moral duties are and what correct rules exist to manage those duties. When the deontologist follows his or her duty, he or she is by definition behaving morally. Failure to follow one's duty makes one immoral.
4.2 What is principle of deontology?
Deontologicalethicalsystemsusuallystressthe explanationswhyboundactionsareperformed.Merelyfollowingthe rightethicalrulesis usuallynot sufficient; instead, oneshouldhavethe rightmotivationsalso. A deontologistisn'tthought-aboutimmoraleven supposingthey needbrokenan ethicalrule, as long as they wereimpelledto stickto some correctethicalduty. Nevertheless,an accuratemotivation aloneisn'ta justification forAssociate in Nursingactionin an exceedinglydeontologicalethicalsystem. Itcan't beused as a basis for describingAssociate in Nursingaction asvirtuouslycorrect.it's conjointlynot enoughto easilybelieve thatone thingis that thecorrect duty to follow.
5. What ethical issues brought by animal testing?
5.1 Animal right and autonomy
Animal testing damage the right and autonomy of animal. Animal rights shows that sure things are wrong as a matter of principle, that there are some things that it is virtuously wrong to try and do to animals. Human beings should not do those things, regardless of what the cost to humanity of not doing them. For examples, human use animals for scientific or commercial using, since the actions hurt animals, it can't be accepted. People should not do those things, although they are doing that in a very humane method.
5.2 Was animal testing violating the principle of utility?
If animal testing can help the scientists or companies to make safe product to human, animal testing was not violating the principle of utility. I have mentioned the principle of utility states that the most moral action is the action that provides pleasure or happiness for the most people. Actions are right if they produce the greatest pleasure. Since animal testing is commonly used for test whether the products harm to the body, damage the normal body system or contain allergic factors. That brings a lot of benefits to human due to decrease the injury to human.
Cite this page
Animal Testing Is Commonly Used. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Free from External Control or Domination
Autonomy is known as our capacity for effectively pursuing one's goals, free from external control or domination. In other words, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces'' (Christman, 2015). Also, autonomy is described as the ability of an individual to feel, think and make decisions for himself. It is the way you act independently, according to your benefits.
An example that it can be highlight is clearly in the field of medicine and health care, where autonomy is an incredibly important and often contentious area for providers. In the first appointment with the doctor, one of the most important documents the person needs to sign is the called informed consent form. This form gives the authority to the doctor and his/her staff to obtain the medical information of this person, as well as to share it with other hospitals, among other centers.
This means that as an autonomous adult, he/she understand the meaning of this document and that the decision is his/her to sign or not, everything is depending on his/her to make that decision.
Autonomy is valuable because respecting someone autonomy is a way to respect their dignity, and respect them as an equal. Respect, it is a basic value that confirms the inherent dignity, worth, and uniqueness of every individual. Doing so enables people to pursue whatever other values they think are important as long as they respect each other's entitlement to do the same (Flanigan, 2017).
Another reason that autonomy is valuable, it is because autonomous people are likely to be happy since they are free to do what they want. As Paolo Verme says in his article Happiness, Freedom and Control'' back in 2009:The variable freedom and control are by far the most significant predictor of life satisfaction'' (Verme, 2009). Autonomy really matter, and it is no less true that it brings a powerful effect on happiness. But the truth is that each person is different, be it the way of acting and the way of thinking, and these differences matter a lot. The individuality and differences of each person is one of the reasons why it is difficult to interact with each other. That's why, everybody needs something different from us in order to be happy, as long as they are to offer the best of what we need from them.
Clearly it is possible to identify that the ability to be autonomous is to know how to direct, make decisions, freely determine the next steps of life, and it is the condition for moral responsibility. We respect people who are exemplary, have ethical values too. These people are d those who deserve the respect of one, and in a way, you respect their autonomy.
If we focus in the dilemma existing over the years ” many groups and organizations in American society are debating whether or not animal testing should be banned ” this is the reason that people's autonomy is either respected or being violated depending on the solution implemented.
Cite this page
Free From External Control Or Domination. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Dispelling of Stereotypes about Black People
Much of modern African-American art is concerned with dispelling stereotypes and stigma surrounding black communities. Two well known examples are Baratunde Thurston's book How to Be Black and Jordan Peele's movie Get Out. Thurston and Peele discuss and attempt to dispel stereotypes about black people and lift DuBois's veil on the black community including the dysfunctional family, the discussion of racial politics between whites and blacks, and how black people are considered to have brawn over brain. Both writers seek to accomplish three goals: to lift DuBois's veil on the condition of black people in America, to dispel these harmful stereotypes, and to entertain their viewers.
Thurston lost his father at a young age, but the stereotype that this would impede his development is challenged by Thurston. The lack of a father in his childhood did not seem to have any harmful effect on his upbringing as his mother was still perfectly capable of raising Baratunde on her own, and was even very involved in his development. She fed him very healthy food like rice cakes; Grape-Nuts cereal and skim milk (Thurston 37) which all came from a local co-op. She encouraged him to be physically active by enrolling him in an all-black Boy Scout troop and taking him camping, hiking, and biking. She also encouraged him to be be active in his community by enrolling him in a local orchestra program. While the stereotype that many black children grow up without a complete family is not necessarily challenged by Thurston, he does challenge the belief that this somehow robs him of a fulfilling childhood. His father was unfortunately killed in a drug deal, which can add fuel to fears that black people are violent, murdering, drug dealers. However, Thurston feels it necessary to write about the circumstances around his father's death because it is crucial to not ignore the underlying politics that lead to such violence. Thurston spends so much of his book describing his post-father childhood so that he can demonstrate that a complete family is not entirely necessary in order to have a fulfilling childhood.
Similarly to Thurston, Chris from Get Out lacks both of his parental figures growing up. Chris's father was not around much and his mother died when he was very young, but despite that Chris appears to have lead a mostly normal life. Chris lives in a very nice apartment, has a successful job as a photographer, and is dating a girl who comes from a very affluent family. Peele similarly shows his audience that while it is not uncommon for black people in America to lack a traditional nuclear family, that alone does not negatively impede their upbringing. The Armitage's do use his childhood tragedies to subdue him, as the memory of his mother's death is what initially sends him to the sunken place. This shows how privileged people can not only get ahead with their own privilege, but abuse others for their lack of it. Simultaneously creating systems on injustice, and punishing others for falling victim to them.
The two writers diverge slightly in how they see racial politics as it is discussed among white people and black people. Thurston sees it as a serious, but mostly unharmful, nuisance, and also as white people inserting themselves into something they know little about. White people discussing racial politics among black people in the workplace is so prevalent that Thurston describes it as a second job, for black coworkers. Black coworkers, as Thurston writes, are expected to be a representative for the black community and explain what and why many black people do, say, or think certain things, as though the black community is one hive mind or as though there is a National Black Agenda. Additionally, white coworkers bring up politics around black people in order to insert themselves; they simply want to share their ideas with them because they either seek validation or wish to argue. Overall, political discussions about race are, according to Thurston, incredibly exhausting but mostly harmless.
Peele, however, sees discussions about racial politics even more nefariously. Get Out primarily focuses on the theme of white liberalism and how it can be used to harm black people. When Chris is concerned that Rose's parents may be racist she explains that her father is a big supporter of President Obama and therefore cannot be, and Mr. Armitage reaffirms this later in the film. Additionally, Rose stands up to a seemingly racist police officer for Chris, and later on Mr. Armitage praises Jesse Owens for defeating the Nazis in the Olympics. The other guests also embarrass themselves by overly praising black people, like how one mentions that being black is now in fashion as opposed to fairer skin. This is all seen as ironic once their true nature is known. Why would the Armitages and other buyers enslave black people despite their constant reassurances that they are not racist? This seeming paradox can be interpreted in two ways: either Peele is saying that even white liberals are not immune from being racist, or alternatively, people can pretend to have tolerant political views in order to disguise their actual beliefs. This is left ambiguous purposefully because racism in real life is very ambiguous itself. Racism is not necessarily unique to any one political philosophy, as even people who are well-intentioned can harbour problematic views. It is possible that the Armitages and the other buyers truly do not think they are racist and exclusively buy black people just because they think they are cool, and it is also possible that they are all massive racists who are just pretending they do not hate black people. In real life, it is also very difficult to distinguish between tolerant liberals who mean well and true racists who simply hide their racism. Peele encourages the viewer to question all the characters' motives, comments, and actions because racism in the real world can be subverted or disguised, and he encourages the audience to question people's true intentions more intensely.
One of the more harmful stereotypes about black Americans is that they are more brawn than brain. This contrast is drawn much more explicit with Chris and the guests. Chris's personal space is constantly violated by them as they like to touch and prod him. For example, one lady feels his arms and uncomfortably asks Rose, So, is it true? Is it better? (Get Out). Another guest brags to Chris about playing golf with Tiger Woods and asks to see Chris's form in order to examine his athletic ability. Most importantly, at the climax of the film Chris defeats the Armitage's by outsmarting them, not by outmuscling them. After being tied up in the basement, Chris comes up with the idea to shove cotton stuffing from inside the chair's arms into his ears to prevent himself from being incapacitated. By doing this, he is able to trick Jeremy into thinking he is unconscious. He does not dramatically rip his arms out of the chair with his bare strength; it is much more satisfying to see him outsmart his opponents. When Chris attempts to escape through the front door he is ambushed by Jeremy and put into a chokehold. He tries to open the door twice, only to have it kicked shut each time by Jeremy. After realizing this, Chris purposely opens the door a third time knowing that when he does Jeremy will extend his leg and leave it in reach to be stabbed by Chris. Chris does not overpower Jeremy because he is stronger or faster, but because he outwitted him. Rose originally outsmarts Chris by tricking him into thinking they were in a relationship, but Chris outsmarts Rose at the finale of the film. The grandfather attempts to outmuscle Chris by wrestling him to the ground, but Chris uses his phone's flash to bring back Walter from the sunken place, saving himself. Finally, Rod acts as the deus ex machina by conducting his own personal investigation into Chris's whereabouts. Peele purposefully has his black characters outsmart the antagonists in order to dispel the harmful stereotype that black people are not clever and can only brute-force their way through problems.
Thurston also dispels the stereotype that black people are only brawn over brain, though much more implicitly. Unlike Peele, he does not directly compare his athletic abilities to his academic ones. Thurston attends two extremely prestigious schools, Sidwell Friends and Harvard, and also had the option to attend Yale, Northeastern, and MIT. Most people never have the opportunity to attend any of those schools, dispelling the stereotype that black people are doomed to be academically underachieving. Thurston has it explained to him at Sidwell that an Oreo is somebody who's black on the outside and white on the inside (Thurston 54), referring to a thin nerdy black kid. To this student, being nerdy and unathletic literally makes a black person white as though it is impossible to be both black and smart, but Thurston meets many intelligent black students at Sidwell and Harvard that challenge that belief. Also, Thurston's roommate at Harvard covers his furniture in a large Afrocentric flag and Thurston regularly wears African clothing, showing how a black person does not have to let go of their blackness in order to be smart.
Both How to Be Black and Get Out are effective at dispelling black stereotypes and lifting the veil on being black in America, but use different strategies to do so. How to Be Black is a detailed memoir about the many experiences Thurston has being black, and because of this he can go more in depth into the many different thoughts and feelings he had about those experiences. Thurston can give his own nuanced takes on race and offer advice based on what he has done and seen. Get Out, on the other hand, is shorter in length, and so has very little time to give nuanced perspectives. We also cannot listen to Chris's thoughts like we can Thurston's, and so all the audience has is their own thoughts and feelings. This, along with actually seeing these interactions acted out, allows viewers to project themselves onto either Chris or the guests, and possibly reflect on times when they were in a similar situation. Thurston has much more time to discuss many stereotypes in his book, whereas a movie can only thoroughly tackle several. Also, being a memoir, Thurston can discuss being black in many different settings and across many years. Get Out, alternatively, only tells one short narrative across a few days, with only a few flashbacks to Chris's childhood. Chris is also a much more relatable character than Thurston. Thurston went to Sidwell Friends and Harvard, is an extremely well-accomplished writer and journalist, and is very affluent, making him very unrelatable, even to a black audience. Peele, in Get Out, chose to make his main character a relatively average person with an average life.
When discussing the common experiences of black people in America, it is more effective to make the main character somebody who has those common experiences. Finally, both entertain their audiences through comedy. Thurston uses sarcasm and dry humor, whereas Peele uses awkward situations and a comedic relief character for humor. Both employ humor because it allows for a far less uncomfortable discussion on race. Both pieces attempt to educate their viewers on common experiences among black people in America, and both succeed using wildly different techniques.
Cite this page
Dispelling Of Stereotypes About Black People. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Stereotypes about Hispanic People
Stereotypes are something we hear all the time by anyone. We all label someone by their appearance, the way they look, act, or talk. Just because we're labeled as something people see us as, doesn't make it true. Just like the hispanics stereotype, people see them as brown, illegal, and with low minimum wage jobs. Latinos are known as all being Mexican, having big families, and how latina women should be housewives.
One stereotype that I feel that will never die down is that all hispanic people are mexican. Especially if an individual is brown. As the article Colombia Chronicle states, A majority of hispanic immigrants do come from Mexico, but Latin America is more than just Mexico. People get offended when others immediately think they're Mexican simply because of their skin color or the way they look. The ones that think of people as Mexican forget that there are other places in Latin America such as Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. I understand how these people feel because I have felt the same way when people immediately think i'm Mexican simply because of my skin color.
For example, there was this one time at work when a man in his late 40s came into the store and I greeted him. For a couple of seconds he stared at me making me feel uncomfortable until he finally speaks up saying You're from Mexico? It wasn't really an insult but I took it as one because he first made me feel uncomfortable with his stare and after thought I was Mexican. Which I am but I just didn't like the fact that that was the first thing that came to his mind due to the way he saw me. This ideas that people have that everyone is Mexican makes them ignorant because Mexico isn't the only place that exists and Mexican people can be light skin and with colored eyes.
The ?all Latinos have big families one can also be a big problem. In my family, I actually don't have 20 cousins all around the world or aunts and uncles that I don't know but are related to me. There are some big families but its not everyone but people don't seem to notice or care and just go with what they think or know. In the US women get help from welfare or food stamps, making some women very greedy and get pregnant once again. While this isn't everyone, that's also another reason why other people think Hispanics have many kids, because they get more money without having to lift a finger. But it's not every woman. I've seen some moms out with their kids in the cold or hot weather, selling any little thing they can sell in order to be able to keep their family safe and not have them miss a single meal.
According to Demo Nemo there is about 3.25 people in the average Hispanic household, making hispanics have the largest household in the US. While hispanics do tend to have many people in an apartment, it doesn't necessarily mean it's all family. My parents before used to share a one bedroom apartment with 4 other people. Out of those four people, only one was family. The rest were his friends. Same with kids, I've met so many women who always say they don't want any more kids after having two to three. Pew Research Center states how it has made a big decrease over the years. Parents went from having four or more children to two, three the most making it a big improvement.
The most common stereotype a woman hears is your job when you get married is to be a housewife, care for your husband and children. This is the most ignorant thing that still occurs today. That saying was ago, when our grandparents were younger and our parents were teens. Men are suppose to put a roof over his families head and bring money to their house. While a wife is suppose to give up her life, because its not useful or important and dedicate themselves fully to their home, husband, and children.
While this tradition is old, some parents still follow it and want their kids to as well. I'm thankful my parents dont see it the way and that they weren't raised old fashioned because I get to be more than a housewife, I get to have my own career and know how to do something in the real word. Be able to feel useful and not only useful in the kitchen.
Cite this page
Stereotypes About Hispanic People. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Stereotypes Directed Towards Latin Americans
Stereotypes have a big impact on our life. Without noticing, everyone labels someone by their appearance, the way they talk and maybe even walk. Stereotypes can make a person feel insecure and be unfair because people immediately label someone for something they do or because of their gender. Just because we are all labeled as something by the way people see us as, doesn't mean it needs to be true. Stereotypes can be harmful because they are based on gender, race, and have a really big impact on Hispanics.
Stereotypes based on gender say how women should be a housewife once they are married and just take care of their kids. Some families still have the same traditions that their families told them and want their kids to follow it. For example, according to the Latino Leadership Council, Elisa Herrera states, I see young Latino boys being given the freedom to go out.. While the daughters are expected to stay home, be proper, help with the housework and essentially ready themselves to be future mothers and homemakers. This is very true and still happens to this day. Young girls are prohibited from going out, especially on their own because they're weak and anything can occur to them while a young boy can easily take care of himself because he's stronger. Fathers praise their sons and tell them how if anything ever occurs to them they are responsible for the women and the son will be the man of the house. While the men in the house can just relax and watch TV, the women have to be in the kitchen, cooking and the daughters have to help out by washing dishes and learn how to cook.
While this doesn't happen in my family, my mom does make me do the chores and says how I need to learn how to be independent and learn how to do things on my own without any help. She tells my sister the same thing and although I don't like doing chores, I do them because we all have to help out at home and none of us gets a free pass. Two researches from the University of Nebraska and UC Davis did a 2004 study in where they studied young Latino and Latinas, and one Latina women said:
He (her brother) had a very much later curfew than I did. He got a car, got to drive a car and then he also got his own car and I never didI could only go to school-related activities and he could do about anything, he could go any place he wanted and so I always felt like I was the one that she (her mother) just didn't ever let go, she always kept control over everything that I did.
This is very realistic and happens a lot, especially in Hispanic shows. When I'm watching a TV show, such as La Rosa De Guadalupe which is a Mexican TV show that talks about all different types of problems that happens in real life. While it is different for every person with their social status, there still is a few similarities. People from high class give their sons anything they want and don't have a curfew while their daughters don't have to do chores, they have to stay home and be ready to be the perfect wife by giving their family all the attention they need. For medium and low class, it is the same by the girls having to do chores and the guys not having to worry about washing or cleaning up anything and can easily boss around their own mother and sisters by asking them to do anything they need. This ends up being bad, because the sons look up to their fathers, and see how machismo their fathers are and end up being the same way, not only with their mother and sisters, but even at school, with a girlfriend and with anyone else they feel like because the son feels like he has more power than a woman. Machismo means how a man has a lot of pride, and can be very aggressive, and say things such as, men don't cry.
In the United States particularly I have noticed that there are many stereotypes directed towards Latin Americans. One of the stereotypes that brings our Latin American culture down is that many Americans commonly claim that all Latinos are Mexican. According to NBC News, they published an article discussing the struggles Latinos face with this stereotype. Being Latino means being part of a rich, diverse culture. Or does it? Some Latinos feel removed from their peers because of their skin color, language ability, or mixed-race heritage.This is a struggle I relate to. I am a Mexican American. With that being said in my community I feel like there is a certain way I am supposed to act. With stereotypes being one thing and my family constantly telling me to not lose my heritage I find myself questioning who I want to be. At times I even feel ashamed of showing off my culture because I don't want to come across as a stereotypical Latina. I am not ashamed of my ethnicity but stereotypes make me feel that I should be.
Many people immediately put a label to someone they see, for example, in school, Asians are known as the smart ones in math because of how easily it is for them to understand the lessons.
Another stereotype that sadly is given to Latino Americans is that the majority of us are or will be garden workers, house maids, janitors, or construction workers. Even though there are many people that work in those fields we are much more than just people who come to this country other than cleaning. There are many entrepreneurs, business owners, doctors, lawyers etc. who are Hispanics. For some reason the stereotypical jobs are looked down on by more privileged people. In many times it feels like we're even being ridiculed on television. In many films Latinos are portrayed as the nanny or the maid. One of the most recent and disrespectful things that have happened on TV was on a program titled The View. Kelly Osbourne, a co-host and her fellow hosts were discussing Donald Trump wanting to deport immigrants back to their country and she said, If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump. The comment was not only disrespectful to every immigrant who has consistently done difficult jobs in order to provide to their family because they aren't privileged enough to afford much, but it was also assuming that cleaning toilets is all Latinos have to offer.
Stereotypes are harmful to any race. Recently with all the news headlines and the hate increasing towards the Hispanic community those stereotypes have been used to degrade our potential as Americans in this country. As a Latina myself the only thing I can do is to continue to strive and push against any stereotype about my ethnicity. Along the side of a generation of Latinos who are attending college to make something out of ourselves. All I could hope for is that one day our hard work is recognized by those who criticize us. Whether it be proving to your mother you will be much more than a housewife, a man fighting against machismo, struggling to fit in with your community or studying to make a career for yourself just remember us Latinos are much more than that.
Work Cited
- Herrera, Elisa. A Tale of Two Childhoods - How We Raise Our Sons and Daughters Differently. Latino Leadership Council, 27 Apr.2011
- Rodriguez , Julie M. Latino Life: Are We Tolerant Of Our Own Hispanic Diversity? NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 31 July 2014
- If You Kick Out Latinos, Who Will Clean Toilets? The View. ABC. Television. 04 Aug. 2015
Cite this page
Stereotypes Directed Towards Latin Americans. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
Religious Stereotypes
Looking at current events and our history, we can see that many genocides and acts of violence are towards religious groups, we also see that many extreme religious groups are the ones that cause these genocides and acts of violence. Religion, according to many anthropologists, can be described as the relation we have between humanity and the order of existence. For majority of people, the order of existence, does not entail violence. William James would describe religion as a personal experience that one has, and that religion is different for everyone. Religion is viewed in a positive way on a personal level, helping people in many ways, and giving them a sense of purpose. However, society views certain religions negatively, especially religions that differ from our own views. Majority of religions have stood on both sides of violence.
Many would immediately think of the oppression and violence associated with religious groups in the Middle East like the Sunni and Shia. This is a very common situation that many can see, specifically because you can physically tell when someone belongs to an Islamic religion. This stereotype is one of the most dangerous stereotypes there is. We are shown images of Muslims so often in a negative sense that we have now only put violent associations to this religious group. This has to do with our media in Westernized countries, our world-wide perspective, our own diverse or non-diverse communities, and our lack of knowledge on what is not familiar to us. Specifically, here in the United States, we view religion and define religion differently than other regions of the world. As a country that is majority Christian or Unaffiliated (Pew Research Center), and does not have a religious government our definition of religion is very different than those in areas like the Middle East.
Although Christianity and Islam are both universal religions, we tend to view Islam as a more ethnic religion, which is not the case. Even though some Muslims do identify ethnically with their religion. I believe, we view this strongly due to the fact that someone who believes in an Islamic religion can be determined immediately by their physical appearance, if wearing their traditional attire. Physical appearance is the key factor in stereotyping someone of any form, because it can be done on the spot, which also makes it the most dangerous type of stereotyping. People stereotype on many things including, race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and disabilities, these stereotypes are the prime factor in genocides around the world.
The oppression that happens to specific groups due to stereotypes can be seen before hand in many of the genocides, like the oppression of ethnic Jews in the Holocaust, the oppression of the native Tutsi people and then Hutu people in Rwanda, or the oppression of religious Muslims in Bosnia. These are all examples of oppression leading to massive deaths. Majority of these people being targeted by their physical appearance, this especially specific to the Holocaust, where some Jews tried to hide their Jewish heritage by changing their name or not wearing their Kippah, because they knew that those things would immediately categorize them. Those with other physical qualities that differed from the ?stereotypical' German were also targeted. This was a terrible attempt at ethnic cleansing that was based on stereotypes.
Many religions have stereotypes, both good and bad. Many negative stereotypes deriving from the various extreme groups that claim to be part of a specific religious or ethnic group. There are many political, economic, and social factors that play into these extremists however the stereotypes that appear on all Muslims and those from the Middle East is much more extreme than the stereotypes we see on other religions. Over the past few years, we have seen governments around the word implementing discriminative laws from developing countries like Sri Lanka to Westernized societies like France.
These stereotypes are much more extreme for Muslims than others, for example, within the Buddhist religion there are extremist groups that have acted out violence on others, however, many still view Buddhists as peaceful, in harmony with the world, and harmless. We don't view all Buddhists as ?terrorists' because a very small percent practice extreme values that are not found in that religion. Buddhism specifically is a religion that has a core belief in abstaining from suffering and causing harm to other living beings. Our stereotypical Buddhists isn't the Buddhist attacking Hindus in India or causing oppression in Sri Lanka. These things are very interesting because the issues that Buddhists and Hindus face is a mirror of the issues that Shia and Sunni Muslims face. Shia and Sunni have a lot in common, their biggest difference being who they recognize as their leader after Muhammad died. This is similar to Buddhism and Hinduism, both have many similar morals, pathways to enlightenment, and the belief in karma, their biggest difference being again who they view as priests and their disagreements on the caste system. Buddhism is much more of a personal practice, whereas Hinduism is more strongly focused on gathering with others. However, with so many similarities and violence happening between these different branches of religious, we view one as a ?terrorist' and one as a ?hippy'.
I believe that some of our misinterpretation of this stereotype comes from how we view these different parts of the world. We see the struggle between Sunni and Shia Muslims, along with the oppression of Kurds in Turkey. Specific ethnic and religious groups are being targeted in this region of the world every day. We can start to see this discrimination happening in our own Westernized societies currently, contrary to seeing Westernized discrimination towards Buddhists. In today's society, especially in our current political and social situations, we view certain religions as a threat or danger. With our political activity going on in the Middle East it's easy to understand that our greater threat is an extreme group from the Middle East over an extreme Buddhist group out of Sri Lanka.
That still does not explain why these extreme religious groups are affiliated with specific religions when their actions do not match up with the texts or beliefs. In fact, many that are higher up in these extreme groups aren't even religious enthusiastic people. Specifically within the Syrian crisis, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which is a predominately Sunni affiliated group, does not have all radical Sunni leaders. In fact, if they were all radical Sunnis, ISIL would not be able to be as organized as it is today. The question that rises though, is why would a non-radical Sunni want to be a part of this extremist group like the ones that we see creating violence. William James would say that it is easier to follow those who are religious extremists, due to their enthusiasm, someone who is crazy, or a genius would not go all out on something if it were not true. Therefore, these radicals must be telling the truth, but you need to find the people that will follow these extremists and manipulators.
The psychological theory is based on the authoritarian personality, Bob Altemeyer says that typically those who have strong authoritarian personalities are very religious, however, their dominators are not religious at all. This is exactly what we see when people join these extremists groups, the leaders may not have a religious affiliation, or they identify weakly with a certain religion. Dominators, however are very good at manipulating their followers. Altemeyer explains how one with an authoritarian personality will, if manipulated, go out on a limp to believe their dominator (166). Soon after, a dominators followers are expressing the dominators proposed beliefs and the dominator doesn't need to ?lie' or ?pretend' any longer, as they have already established affiliation with a certain position or religion. This is what I believe is contributing to the growth of extreme groups, the leaders themselves are not radicals, however their followers are. This leads to the confusion of these extremist groups being affiliated with certain religions.
These dominators know what to say and how to say it, they grasp the attention of these authoritarians and fundamentalists and essentially insert fear to really hook them into following. Fear is a dangerous emotion, when someone may feel threatened they will do things that they would not usually do. An example of this would be the killing of thousands of people in America and Europe because it was feared that they were witches. The executers didn't hate these people, but they were scared of them and feared what may happen. This is an example where fear and emotions took over the rational brain. There are many other examples of people letting their emotional fear-stricken brain make decisions for them.
Many of those who were involved in the killings of millions during the Holocaust, were scared for their own life and that's why they killed others. There was extremists in the Nazi regime too, however, many of the people were scared and feared for their own lives. The fear of those people lead to millions of deaths. Hitler initially implemented the fear of what was going to happen to Germany's economy, which was in a crucial state. Fear is an emotion that authoritarians run of off, causing Hitler to gain many followers, the fear over the years turned into not what is going to happen to Germany, but what is going to happen to yourself. This fear can be seen in other examples as well, such as with the Buddhist violence in Sri Lanka, a Buddhist Power Force attacking Muslims, due to fear that they will take over primarily Buddhist and Hindu areas. This to some extreme Buddhist is justified, while other extreme Buddhist do not agree because if goes against their core beliefs.
Overall, there are a lot of factors that play into religious violence. Political parties, religious parties, and our perception of the world all play important roles in how we view a specific group of people. There are tons of other factors, and our own personal self-awareness that contribute to these stereotypes and acts of violence. The truth being though that unless we can educate ourselves on the real issues behind extreme groups, wrongly affiliated members of religions, and the understanding of others beliefs and views, we will not be able to end all the violence and discrimination. Jarni Blakkarly said by not looking at the complexity to these situations we take the cheap option of blaming religion instead of making the effort to understand. This is true and ideally avoidable, if more were educated on how many pieces play a part in the discrimination, violence, and genocide people face every day all around the world.
Bibliography
Altemeyer, Bob. "The Authoritarians." (n.d.): n. pag. University of Manitoba. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
Blakkarly, Jarni. "Buddhist Extremism and the Hypocrisy of 'Religious Violence'" “ Opinion “ ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). N.p., 29 May 2015. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
"Religious Landscape Study." Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. Pew Research Center, 11 May 2015. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
"Why Are Buddhist Monks Promoting Violence in Sri Lanka?" Political Violence a Glance. Ed. Matthew Isaacs. N.p., 01 July 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2016.
Cite this page
Religious Stereotypes. (2019, Apr 12).
Retrieved November 5, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/04/page/16/
