1

Topic: Should Animals have Rights?

(United Press International Photo Collection)

Olivia Ojala
Trelease
English 1010
25 November 2019
 Ojala 2

Statement of Topic:
For my viewpoint synthesis paper, I researched the controversial topic of animal rights.
Animal rights differs from animal welfare because it doesn’t support the use of animals for food,
clothing, or any other service, while animal welfare allows this through humane conduct. No
matter how humane or how responsible the situation may be, animal rights activists oppose
everything involving the use of animals. Supporters of animal welfare push for animal protection
laws, while animal rights supporters hope to achieve legal rights for animals.

Purpose:
The topic of animal rights has gained much popularity and controversy in recent years.
The many varying viewpoints and perspectives of this issue have always interested me. My
purpose through my research is to explore the results that have occurred through the use of
animals for studies and if they are worth the suffering they experience in the process. The overall
purpose of this research is to clarify the present animal rights situation in the nation while
exploring the benefits and consequences. My research is focused mainly around questions of
value because there are many discussions based around if animal rights are a necessary, essential
measure or not. The question of policy is also important because there are different ideas for how
the issue of animal rights should be approached.
Scope:
All of my research is based around the use of animals for medical research along with the
treatment they receive. The research I found is mainly focused on the results that have come
from animal testing, such as medical advancements and a wider range of knowledge with
treatments. It leaves out the aspect of zoos, circuses, anything involving animal entertainment,
cloning, and hunting. All of my research is regarding the animal rights situation that is present in
the United States only. It also covers previous cases of animal research, the extent of an animals
cognitive thinking, and the legal protections that have been enacted for animal rights.
 Ojala 3

Research Section:
Viewpoint #1:
Those in favor of animal rights view animals just as deserving of freedom from
exploitation as humans. In this view, animals are not any less inferior to humans because of their
lower cognitive function, but they are equally deserving of legal rights because of their inherent
capacity to feel pain, just like humans. Animal rights activists argue that the regulations against
animal cruelty are not ethical, animal research is not always reliable to humans, and animal
exploitation is unnecessary in the modern society.
Animal rights supporters emphasize the point that the laws against animal suffering and
exploitation are simply not strict enough in their guidelines and the overall process is unethical.
The current law regarding animal rights is the Animal Welfare Act, which is a federal law that
regulates animal welfare in research. This was passed in 1966, originally to “prevent the
unauthorized buying and selling of pet dogs and cats for research purposes” (Ferdowsian), but
many aspects of the law were expanded in the future. Many who support animal rights do not
believe it is doing enough to protect the animals being tested. The Animal Welfare Act only
protects a small portion of the animals that
are used for research, excluding 90% of
them from the law completely
(Ferdowsian). Many of the animals which
are not protected, such as birds, mice, and
rats, are some of the most frequently used
animals. Along with the inconsistent
guidelines, animal research is often
unethical because of the way it prioritizes
science over the animals well-being. This
differs from human related research because
the human life and overall population tend
(Institute for Humane Education)
 Ojala 4

to be much more protected than the science resulting from the study. The emotional and physical
suffering that animals experience with many of the experiments depicts how their welfare is
pushed aside for research purposes. Although researchers do try to decrease the amount of pain
and anxiety animals will go through in labs, the suffering is still apparent in the animals as they
are “held in sterile, isolated cages, forced to suffer disease and injury, or euthanised at the end of
the study” (Engdahl). In human society, the treatment of animals is regarding the benefit of
humans. Animals are almost like machines in our culture, needing “no more than simple
maintenance” (Aronson) to keep functioning for humanity.
Another valid argument from those reinforcing animal rights is that the outcomes from
animal research are not always valuable or reliable for humans. One of the most prominent
examples of this is the research done on chimpanzees. Research on chimpanzees began all the
way back in the 1920s, but it wasn’t federally funded until the 1960s (Save the Chimps). For
many decades, chimpanzees were researched and experimented on, suffering through it all.
Hepatitis C, for example, doesn’t have any kind of affect on chimpanzees, yet they were still
being used for the research. This proves that the treatment/outcome that may have worked on the
chimpanzees is not nearly as relevant to humans, making it an unreliable experiment. Along with
that, research done for breast cancer on animals seems to bring findings that don’t have much
value to humans. Humans are one of the only species that develop breast cancer, but Susan Love,
researcher of breast cancer, states that animals are still the main source of testing (Ferdowsian).
She hopes to move the research from “ineffective animal models to breast cancer prevention
research conducted on healthy women” (Ferdowsian) in order to advance the validity of the
results. Several factors which may be vital to understand in a study like this, such as genes or
environment, could not be approached with the use of animals. For many studies, animals don’t
provide much benefit to humans because they are just so different from humans.
Animal rights activists also tend to agree that in the modern society, animal exploitation
seems unnecessary and wasteful. Each year, 50 to 100 million animals are killed worldwide for
“experiments and drug research” (Wright, Hoagland), and the United States alone spends over 12
billion dollars annually to fund animal research (PETA). With so much time, money, and lives
spent on research, it seems like a waste after the delay it has caused in several medical
 Ojala 5

discoveries. There have been countless instances where the research done on animals simply led
to an unnecessary delay in advancement. The most significant example of this occurrence is from
1954, regarding the dangers of smoking cigarettes. Back then, researchers found that smoking
could potentially lead to lung cancer in humans, but the report was disregarded after finding that
the “inhalation of cigarette smoke could not be induced in animal models” (Engdahl), pushing
the actual warning of smoking 30 years into the future. Although a handful of valuable
discoveries have come from animal research, the time, effort, and money that are invested may
not be worth the failures that occur. Along with the wasteful animal research, many argue that
animals are not needed industrially for food in our society. Billions of dollars could be saved by
shifting to a “plant-based diet or with minimal consumption of animal products” (Issitt), which
has been achieved in several societies. In many other countries, machines have begun to
completely replace animal labor as well. The lack of animals needed as a food source along with
the possible delay in discoveries indicates the wastefulness of animal exploitation.
Animal rights activists believe in providing legal rights to all animals rather than viewing
them as inferior in any way. They feel that we should hold ourselves responsible for being the
voice for animals who cannot speak for themselves. They feel some of the most important
arguments regarding this controversial topic are the lack of ethical regulations behind the
legislations, the unreliable findings from animals, and the unnecessary waste of resources on
animal exploitation.

Viewpoint #2:
Many people who may be against animal rights are not necessarily against animal
welfare. In most instances, researchers do not have the intentions of harming or traumatizing the
animals they use, but rather providing the most comfortable and pain-free environment as they’re
used for studies. Animal rights opponents tend to simply just intend to advance in medical
knowledge without any desire to bring suffering to animals, even though it doesn’t always
happen this way. There are exceptions, of course, but humane conduct is essential to the majority
of animal researchers. Objectors of legal rights for animals usually believe that the medical
benefits animals provide for humans are vital, animals supply many valuable resources that have
 Ojala 6

given humans much success in the past, and animals are too different from humans to be
considered in the same way.
Although animal testing has shown several delays and troubles in the past, it is no
question that the research has also equipped humans
with various new treatments and medical advantages
that could have not been reached without research.
Testing animals with brand new, potentially curing
drugs protects humans from “side effects that are not
apparent until the drug is tried on an actual organism”
(Keller). It would be preferred by many scientists to be
able to discover treatments without the use of animals,
but with the technology we currently have, that
doesn’t seem like a possibility. The utilization of
animals for research purposes brings much more
safety to humans. Vaccines and drugs for several
deadly diseases, such as polio, smallpox, HIV/AIDS,
hepatitis, and malaria, were all possible through
animal research (Foundation for Biomedical
Research). Along with that, human life expectancy has
also increased in the past 100 years “due to advances
in medicine that would not have been possible without
animal research” (Keller). It has grown by nearly 25
years since 1900. Since so much research is done on
animals, our society has ensured considerate and
humane treatment through several regulations. All
studies regarding animals must undergo a very
meticulous review from the Institutional Animal Care
(SCIFC)
 Ojala 7

and Use Committee (IACUC), which guarantees “that the study is run properly and follows
federal regulations laid out in the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy on
Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (Keller). Alongside the rigorous process of the
IACUC, all laboratories with the intention of researching animals must follow the “3 Rs”: reduce
the amount of animals used, replace any possible animals with models, and refine procedures to
the utmost comfort (Keller). Scientists appear to take all possible precautions in order to protect
the animals tested for medicine, making it more humane to continue with the important research.
Opposers of animal rights also agree that the many things gained from animals, like
clothing, all kinds of food, milk, and medical advancements, have brought humans progression
from the start. From the very start of human society, animals have been used for all kinds of
purposes and benefits for humans. In the earliest cultures especially, animals were used for just
about everything. They were a source of food, agriculture, warfare, fertilizer, and clothing
(Epstein). The book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” by Jared Diamond explains that the regions which
had domesticated animals available to them progressed faster than those who did not. It became a
source of power and success from the very start. Our society has continued to follow this outlook
with a sense of tradition. Animals have been viewed more as property from the beginning, and
this mindset has stuck with humans due to its success. Although animal laws and stricter
regulations have obviously been passed since, the concept of owning animals to profit from them
is clearly still present. This doesn’t intend to mean that animals should receive improper
treatment as property, but rather that the original use of animals should continue with better
regulations.
It is clear that animals are different in a lot of ways from humans. Yes, some animals are
capable of feeling pain and conveying emotions, but the human race is simply much more
advanced in the way thoughts are formed. Defenders of animal rights strive to achieve the same
rights for all living things as humans simply because of the fact that they are living creatures.
Those who disagree, argue that it’s difficult not to acknowledge the fact that “the human race is
exceptionally powerful and dominant on this earth” (Lee, Cushman) due to the much higher
cognitive function. Humans hold a status on Earth that comes with much more responsibility
than other species. Instead of using this natural superiority to fight for animal rights, “humans
 Ojala 8

should utilize our superior intellect as well as our capacity for empathy to safely and ethically
use animals for important purposes,''(Lee, Cushman) including medical advancements. Those
who disagree with animal rights do not believe humans should treat animals as their equal peers,
simply because they’re not. Not all living things are of equal value to society and holding equal
mental capacity. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have “compared the
suffering caused by the meat industry with the Holocaust, slavery, and domestic violence” (Lee,
Cushman), taking it to an extreme. Many were offended by this comparison of animals for food
to extreme human suffering. This kind of comparison minimizes the importance of “the
slaughters of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot by comparing them to the daily activity of slaughtering
cattle” (Epstein). Overall, the noticeably valid differences between animals and humans is
enough to not consider them in a completely equal way.
To conclude, many researchers who resist complete animal rights are not against welfare
for animals. Almost always, the intentions in animal tests are compassionate. These opposers of
animal rights believe that the medical benefits animals provide are extremely important for
human advancement, the progression of humans have depended on animals since the beginning
of society, and the distinct differences between humans and other living things is too great to
ignore or equalize.

Personal Perspective:
In my opinion, the many unnecessary and wasteful animal studies that have been done in
the past are very unacceptable. For example, the many frivolous chimpanzee experiments were
not at all restrained until the 1970’s with the Endangered Species Act. This restricted the
chimpanzee research a little bit, but the full prohibition of chimpanzee studies wasn’t placed
until they had already become endangered many years later (Save the Chimps). This is extremely
heartbreaking because this endangered species could’ve been easily protected and saved. The
issue of animal rights is very controversial due to the many factors that contribute to it, but I
believe animals deserve to be treated in a humane way no matter what. In my opinion, this
concept should be an obvious guideline, but it doesn’t always seem to be. Although animals are
clearly very different from humans, the quality of their life should still be valued just as much as
 Ojala 9

any other living human. I do understand that because of the evident differences animals have, it’s
not reasonable to give them the same exact rights as humans, but it is our duty to protect them.
Animals still deserve simple rights because of the fact that they are alive and capable of feeling
things. We are capable of more advanced cognitive function, and I think we should use this
ability to be compassionate of other species rather than to treat them in an inferior way. As the
“superior” species (regarding cognitive thinking), we have the power to secure humane treatment
for all animals.
Along with being understanding and sympathetic of animals’ lives, I feel that we, as
humans, should continue to advance in medicine with the help of animals. Our use of animals for
this purpose should be extremely strict in it’s guidelines, much stricter than it is now. It should
be as limited as it possibly can, and we should not use animals when they’re not relevant enough
to the study. There have been too many instances where animal studies simply end up being a
waste of money, animal lives, and time, and this should never be the case. Animals can benefit
humans in certain areas, but when they’re not helpful we should never test them. A big example
stated by Ferdowsian, was the use of animals to study The lives of animals are deserving of
comfort and value, and they should never be wasted because of insufficient background
information or a lack of awareness. In my opinion, the great medical advancements that have
been reached through animal experimentation are worth the lives which have been risked
because many more lives are saved through the new medicine.
As for the use of animals for food purposes, I feel like this is more acceptable because of
the many nutritional benefits that are given. Animal meats, such as poultry, beef, pork, and fish,
supply our bodies with many important nutrients. I do understand why animals are used for food
purposes, but I completely disagree with the way in which they are treated in that process. I feel
that the principle of being humane towards animals still stands when discussing factory farming.
I believe that animal slaughter should be constrained and limited much more, rather than
overproducing, and along with that, the environment in which the slaughter occurs needs to be a
comfortable surrounding. It stated in one of the articles that the human race can completely shift
to a vegetarian diet to save animals. I don’t completely agree because I feel like meat is a food
that is very important, and not everyone would be willing to shift to an all vegetarian diet.
 Ojala 10

Overall, the way factory farming occurs needs to shift to a safer, more environment-friendly
method that has the welfare of the animals as a priority.

Proposal of Action:
In order to ensure animals with more humane surroundings and legitimate purposes for
research, I am advocating for the Animal Welfare Enforcement Improvement Act (AWEIA).
This law, inducted just recently on August 29, 2019, is an improvement of the Animal Welfare
Act, bringing more enforcement and accountability. Some of the notable points from this
legislation are the requirement of renewed licenses with a full inspection every year, forbidding
any violators of the law from renewing or issuing a license, requiring the suspension or
permanent revocation of a license from anyone presenting a risk to animal welfare, and requiring
the U.S. Department of Agriculture to publish all inspection reports. This law brings enforcement
to previous federal laws that have been ignored in the past, such as the Endangered Species Act
and mainly the Animal Welfare Act. Through applying a stronger emphasis on this new law,
many other factors and previous laws will be recognized and highlighted in the process. I think
advocacy for the AWEIA is extremely vital for animal welfare, and it seems much more
productive than supporting simply one older law or creating a brand new one. I want to advocate
for this law through social media in order to reach many people, but I will also hold a small
conference in order to reach the local communities.
To locally support the Animal Welfare Enforcement Improvement Act, I am planning an
event on March 21, 2020 at 2:00 PM. With a few months until the event, there will be time to
reach out to the interested group and advertise the event. This event will be located at the
Element Event Center in Salt Lake City, Utah and it will be a small conference for anyone who
signs up or is invited. I will personally be inviting businesses that are animal related throughout
Utah, along with other influential individuals. This event will be free, since it is mainly to
educate and provide ways to advocate. However, the maximum amount of people able to attend
will be limited to 100. In order to advocate for the AWEIA more globally, I will begin by
spreading the message on social media and creating a website. This website is going to be called
“Animal Welfare Support”, and it will include all of the elements of the AWEIA, reasons to
 Ojala 11

support animal welfare, a sign up area for the local event, and all of the details regarding the
advocacy event. There will be a sign up button in big letters that will allow the viewer to sign up
for the conference. Also, I am going to contact different, well-known individuals who support
animal rights and would possibly be willing to help spread the message, like Ellen DeGeneres,
Olivia Munn, Kristen Bell, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio and more. I will also reach out to local
organizations and bigger companies that fight for and protect animals such as CAWS, PETA,
Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, and Cruelty Free International. Contacting other
organizations and people can potentially help reach out to more than just nearby communities.
These companies and individuals could use their status to spread the message and my website
through social media or other public forms. The main method of advocacy is to make people
aware of this legislation.
I am planning on gaining several volunteers to help with the event from my National
Honor Society. There are always many eager students who need service hours or are simply
willing to help, so I’m sure I will get at least 5-10 volunteers through NHS. All of the people
who will be attending this event is expected to figure out transportation individually, and there
will be parking spots available to those who drive.
The cost for the local event should not add up to be too much since the main goal is
mainly to educate and share information. There won’t be any meals provided at the event, but
water and light refreshments will be offered, costing no more than $20. The venue is reserved for
2 hours and it will cost around $200. The total cost of the event with the venue, refreshments,
and handouts adds up to be about $250 and I plan to use my personal savings to finance this
event. The event is planned to go from 2:10 until 3:40, and it will be a presentation of
information to spread awareness of the AWEIA. It will begin with a presentation discussing the
law and its many factors in detail. This is to educate and make sure everyone fully understands
the AWEIA in its entirety. This portion should go until 2:30, and then a speaker named Vaughn
Maurice will share his ideas. He is the executive director of the Humane Society of Utah, and he
has agreed to come join the event for free! He is scheduled to share his views and ideas for
animal welfare until 3:00. For the final portion of the event, a small bag will be handed out to
everyone. It will include fliers that can be placed in their companies, papers with websites of
 Ojala 12

other supporters, and tips to help further push for animal welfare through social media and their
businesses. All of the handouts will be explained. Afterwards, there will be a bit of time for
attendees to ask questions or share their thoughts. As for the website, I am not planning on
spending any money on that, but rather I will use a free hosting provider.

Conclusion:
Animal rights and animal welfare are similar in a lot of ways, but the large difference is
that animal welfare allows animals to be used for certain services through humane conduct,
while animal rights does not. Those who oppose animal rights usually see the enormous medical
benefits that have come from animal research in the past, and they believe it is too valuable to
stop. Animal rights activists however view this very differently. They defend the lives of animals
and believe medical advancements will occur without the help of animals.
In my opinion, animals should always be treated in a humane and acceptable way no
matter what, but the medical benefits really are a huge, unignorable factor. Animals’ lives should
be treated with more value by the researchers and others working with them, but personally I can
see why animal testing should be continued. However, I do think the amount of testing that is
done needs to be limited and much more restricted. It has been used wrongfully in the past.
Overall, animal welfare should be above anything else when dealing with animals for research,
food, or entertainment.

Works Cited:

“Animal Research Achievements.” ​Foundation for Biomedical Research​,

fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-research-achievements/.

Aronson, Jamie. “Point: The Fight for Animal Rights.” ​Points of View: Animal Rights,​ June
2019, p. 5. ​EBSCOhost​,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=12435184&site=pov-live.
 Ojala 13

“Chimps in Laboratories.” ​Save the Chimps,​

www.savethechimps.org/the-chimps-history/chimps-in-laboratories/.

“Congressman Krishnamoorthi Announces New Legislation to Strengthen Animal Welfare Act

Enforcement.” ​Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi​, 29 Aug. 2019,
krishnamoorthi.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-krishnamoorthi-announces-
new-legislation-strengthen-animal-welfare.

Epstein, Richard A. "Animals Are the Property of Humans." ​The Rights of Animals,​ edited by
Auriana Ojeda, Greenhaven Press, 2004. Current Controversies. ​Gale In Context:
Opposing Viewpoints​,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010062237/OVIC?u=onlinelibrary&sid=OVIC&xid=9
1cfb8a3. Accessed 5 Jan. 2020. Originally published as "The Dangerous Claims of the
Animal Rights Movement," ​The Responsive Community​, Spring 2000, pp. 28-37.

Ferdowsian, Hope. "Replacements Must Be Found for Animals in Scientific Research."

Scientific Research​, edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing
Viewpoints. ​Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints​,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948225/OVIC?u=onlinelibrary&sid=OVIC&xid=7
a53813e. Accessed 5 Jan. 2020. Originally published as "Animal Research: Why We
Need Alternatives," ​Chronicle.com​, 7 Nov. 2010.

“It's Tax Season: Learn How More Than $12 Billion in Taxpayer Money Is Wasted Annually.”
PETA,​ 3 Aug. 2011,
www.peta.org/features/taxpayer-money-wasted-annually-animal-testing/.

Keller, Ross R. "Scientific Research on Animals Is Vital to Advance in Medicine." ​Scientific

Research,​ edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints.
Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,​
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948222/OVIC?u=onlinelibrary&sid=OVIC&xid=f
 Ojala 14

da8c0a9. Accessed 5 Jan. 2020. Originally published as "How Does Animal Research
Advance Medicine?" ​lions-talk-science.org,​ 25 Nov. 2013.

Lee, M., and C.Ames Cushman. “Counterpoint: Animals Do Not Have Rights.” ​Points of View:
Animal Rights,​ June 2019, p. 3. ​EBSCOhost​,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=26608506&site=pov-live.

"Results from Research on Animals Are Not Valid When Applied to Humans." ​Scientific
Research,​ edited by Sylvia Engdahl, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints.
Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,​
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010948221/OVIC?u=onlinelibrary&sid=OVIC&xid=3
5089eb7. Accessed 5 Jan. 2020. Originally published as "Problems with Animal
Research," ​www.aavs.org.​

Wright, George, and Steve Hoagland. “Counterpoint: Animal Testing Is Cruel and Immoral
Regardless of the Benefits Associated With It.” ​Points of View: Animal Experimentation,​
Sept. 2016, p. 3. ​EBSCOhost​,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=23236881&site=pov-live.