Acevedo 1

Acevedo, Oscar 12/10/13 Prof. Altman Eng115

The Proposal: Going From Criminal to Chic

The debate of whether to continue testing cosmetics on animals has been around for years. Alternatives have been offered in the past; with the intention of avoiding animal abuse in the labs. An alternative that was introduced before was of using live humans as test subjects, which would replace animals in the labs. A modest proposal that should be considered would to use not just any group of humans, but criminals. While others may call the idea absurd and attacking certain human rights, testing products on criminals can be beneficial to humanity as it will lessen crime rates and put an end to animal testing. Some would argue that we have made sufficient progress with animal testing. Opposing forces would also argue that animal testing is essential, bringing benefits to humanity. Scholar Shauny Sun stated in his article, The Truth behind Animal Testing, that Almost every cure or vaccine that is known today is associated with animal testing (Sun). While it is true that animal testing has resulted in finding cures to todays diseases, it does not mean it is the only method to do so. Humanity should be reminded that animals are not similar to us. Using criminals, who are human and therefore similar to us, can be an effective alternative to combat crime and experiments on animals because the treatment would give others an incentive to not commit crime and lessen the need for animals.

Acevedo 2

Consider the role of the inmate. In society, a person who breaks the law and is incarcerated is not able to regularly participate. By having products tested on criminals, we give them a purpose. We give them a way to positively contribute to society. After all, most of them would be sentenced for years; prison violence is inevitable due to the poor conditions of these facilities as described in a scholarly journal by David Bierie. Utilizing a Poisson framework, the data showed that poor physical conditions of prisons correspond to significantly higher rates of serious violence (Bierie). Looking in the perspective of the inmate, we understand that there is little to do in prison besides soliciting and fighting. Let us not ignore the fact that it will lead to riots, which would result in injuries and even death from both inmates and officers alike. Instead of allowing them to harm themselves, we must remove a portion of them from the prisons and transfer these convicts to research facilities. Should the proposal be accepted, we can limit prison violence, prevent further experiments on animals and limit crime all at once. As humans, we must think rationally about our choices. As far as anyone is aware, an animal is any creature that does not live like us. In what way was it acceptable to test animals for products that only we can use? A survey conducted in universities from India stated that 60% participants felt human volunteers could be used for microdosing as an important alternative (Farhana). To clarify, the survey asked the applicant what alternatives we should use to replace animal testing. While the statistic alone may not be convincing enough, it does prove that the option of using humans has been considered. Returning to the discussion of a criminals role, it would seem more rational to use humans as test subjects for products that we will eventually use. Let us not forget that this proposal is touching upon ethical grounds. While it could be considered immoral to conduct research on humans, we should be reminded that it is also un-

Acevedo 3

ethical conducting those same tests on animals. Scholar Shauny Sun made an observation that showed that the government would be regulating these activities. They aim to guarantee that allowing facilities to test substances on animals is a last resort, to be condoned only after other methods have failed or been deemed unsuitable (Sun). They are the National Institute of Health and the U.S Department of Agriculture. If the government can take the time to regulate animal research, then they are capable of making the switch towards human research. Surely, we can create a compromise here that would allow scientific research done on humans; the last resort would mean that the amount of animals used will decline. On the question of crime, we know that incarceration alone is not enough to drop crime rates. Others could argue that the punishments our judicial system give is enough to reform convicts. That it is all we need to change our citizens. In the article Is Tougher Better? The Impact of Physical Prison Conditions on Inmate Violence, the author stated that others believe harsh conditions inhibit effective treatment and, perhaps, make offenders worse (Bierie). Humans are actually simple deal with: give them an incentive and they will behave on it. Should incarceration lead to being used in scientific experiments, it would be enough to make others reconsider their actions. With that as motivation, there will be a decline in crime rates. However, this is with the implication that once the proposal has been accepted, it would have been made public. Once the details are de-classified and the population is aware of it, there will be that fear of being experimented on as a motivation to not commit felonies. Sending inmates to research facilities as punishment for their felonies would mean that we will decrease overcrowding in our prisons. As mentioned before, poor conditions will lead to prison violence. We can lessen the risk of such by placing groups of those convicts in various research centers, thus creating a way for inmates to positively contribute to our society at the

Acevedo 4

same time as serving their sentences. As for the animals, they would no longer be used as frequently as before. We would have no need to use them to test human products. The proposal of using prisoners to replace animals is an alternative others should consider. Not only will it lessen the use of animals, but it will solve other problems regarding our prison systems. Others could argue against this on the basis of ethics but it does not change the fact that this is an option worth hearing. After all, we must consider the option that will bring us great benefits at such low costs. Even though it was never said that this idea was fool-proof, as humans, we should think not if our choice is the most convenient but rather will that choice benefit humanity as a whole and not just a certain group.

Acevedo 5

Annotated Bibliography

Bierie, David M. "Is Tougher Better? The Impact Of Physical Prison Conditions On Inmate Violence." International Journal Of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology 56.4 (2012): 338-355. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

This journal discussed about the debate of whether prisons should be stricter or lenient. It stated that there was little evidence but that conditions of the establishment were factors leading to prison violence. The topic still needs further research to make conclusions. R., FARHANA, and MENEZES G. A. "Scientific Alternatives To Animals In Medical Experiments." International Journal Of Pharma & Bio Sciences 4.3 (2013): P-823-P-828. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Nov. 2013. Statistics from a survey conducted in Indian Universities. The research showed that about 60% of the respondents suggested using humans. The findings also show other alternatives to animal testing. Some accepted animal testing but saw it as ethically questionable. Sun, Shany. "The Truth Behind Animal Testing." Young Scientists Journal 5.12 (2012): 83-85. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. A brief look on animal testing. It included benefits, oppositions and alternatives. The analysis stated that the facilities were regulated by the government. It claim that a small percentage of the animals used received pain as a result of experiments.