Animal Testing Argument

Animals, whether cats in the house or lions on the savannah, reserve the right to life. The disregard for animal life has been equated to racism or sexism; acting on principles of disrespect for life and thoughts of discrimination (Animal Testing and Ethics). The continuation of animal testing and experimentation take an enormous psychological toll on humanity, leading to rationalization and flawed justification. To carry on this path would darken the mark this animal abuse is currently leaving on our humanity, one step towards yet another fault in human nature.

In our ever-changing world the race to find the best technological advancements has never been higher. Progress within the medical field has changed drastically in the last 50 years. “Health is driven by the technologies that cure the unhealthy. These technologies need to advance along with an advancing society. In the last five decades new and improved, less expensive, medicine has been produced” (Leonard). Behind all this advanced medicine are the technologies, or creatures, that are used to test and improve the medicine. Animals are used to test the drugs and medicine that are in route to be produced for human use. “The term "Animal Testing" refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products” (Humane Society). There are people who side with, and agree that animal testing improves the lives of humans, and there are individuals who believe the harm this research brings to animals is unreasonable and can be prevented.

Most individuals would be saddened knowing that animals were being harshly experimented on for human benefits. The testing of animals is deemed to be cruel and inhumane. However animal testing has saved thousands of humans lives. Some believe the sacrifice is worth the gains, but others disagree and suggest other testing methods. Ultimately, the question that arises on many different occasions, is if animals should be experimented on, or not.

The first argument claims that animal research plays a vital role in virtually every major medical advances in this last century for both human health and veterinary health (Trull, 2014). The first premise says that animal research was a vital role for all medical advances, which is fact-based. However, it is not true because there are medical discoveries that are founded without the use of animal testing such as clinical research. The second premise states that medical treatments have advanced in the last century, which is fact based. This is true because there are medical breakthroughs of different discoveries throughout the time from the help of animal testing. Therefore, the conclusion states that animal research contribute for both human health and veterinary health. The fallacy used for this argument is appeal to

“Lots of people talk to animals…Not very many listen, though…That’s the problem”(Ben Hoffman). The controversy of animal testing is phenomenal; it always has been. I remember dissecting animals throughout my years of school in the "name of science". It was only until recently that I started questioning the government 's methods to teach us. We dissected a dog shark in my oceanography class last year. There had to been at least 80 dead sharks in about four different buckets; that was when it crossed the line. I understood a lamb eye or something, but breeding sharks in captivity just so they can be killed? Animal testing is wrong in every way to me.

Have you ever had a sick relative? If so, have they used medication to help with said illness? Well that medication had to have come from somewhere. Animal testing has help conduct products such as vaccines for smallpox, hypothermia, and other major diseases. Now take into consideration what might have happened to that relative without the medication. As you can tell, animal testing has a positive impact on society, despite what might be claimed to be unjust. I will be explaining why this is so, and how some of the arguments are irrelevant.

Animal activists and scientists experience ongoing conflict between animal experimentation and biomedical ethics. Animal testing is one of the oldest methods of experimentation. In the 1980s, the animal rights movement and the argument surrounding the ethics came under fire. As a result of this movement, the experimental procedures became public, giving more incentive to the activists and momentum to their cause. The ethics of animal experimentation come into question in everything from beauty products to the food and vitamins that are sent to consumers worldwide. However, because of the industries ' involvement within animal experimentation, many consumers do not know how these products they are purchasing are tested. Although the ethics of experimentation have come into question, new ideas of experimentation have progressed. Within the biomedical field, new testing methods for both medicine and beauty products have evolved. Because of this new technology, activists against animal experimentation argue that the necessity of animal experimentation is unneeded. In contrast, scientists argue it is not outdated. Despite the progress made by the activists many scientists still believe that animal experimentation will be needed. Although animal testing may have served as a useful tool in the past, it no longer is as accurate as the new technology and research methods from the 21st century.

A lot of people don’t take it into consideration, but it’s an issue that we really need to address. Animal testing is cruelty more than science. Animals are not treated well and are often abused by their handlers. They are not just objects. They have feelings and can think, just like us humans do. Namely,

Countless brands that people continue to use in their everyday lives test their products on animals. So many products that people keep in their homes stem from some sort of animal cruelty. Animals are being tested on products for the benefit of human use. " These include tests for cosmetics, food additives, household cleaners, pesticides, and industrial chemicals" (Baier, 136). Many people are not aware that animals are being tortured for products used in everyday life. Millions of animals are being tortured during animal experiments; when this cruelty is unnecessary. The results researchers receive from animal tests are inaccurate and wasteful. Animal testing should be eliminated due to the fact that animals endure inhumane suffering and long-term effects when alternative methods are available, and the information is unreliable and wasteful.

Imagine walking into a cosmetic or medical research laboratory and seeing thousands of animals locked up in cages, deformed, injured, even dead. In 2010 a total of 26 million animals in the US were tested on (thehastingscenter.org). Animals have the closest genetics to humans than anything else yet animal testing is a cruel and inhumane job and not all animals have similar organ functions to humans. Animals should not be used for scientific or commercial testing.

Throughout history, beginning as early as 500 BC, animals have been used to test out products that will later be utilized by humans (“Animal Testing” 4), what isn’t publicly discussed about is the way it will leave the animals after the process is done. Many innocent rabbits, monkeys, mice, and even popular pets such as dogs are harmed during the testing application of cosmetics, medicine, perfumes, and many other consumer products (Donaldson 2). Nevertheless, there are many people whom support the scandal because "it is a legal requirement to carry out animal testing to ensure they are safe and effective” for human benefit (Drayson). The overall question here is should it even be an authorized form of experimentation in the United States, or anywhere else? The fact of the matter is that there are alternatives to remove animals out of the equation for good (“Alternatives to Animal Testing” 1). They are cheaper, and less invasive than the maltreatment of the 26 million innocent animals that are subjected to the heartlessness of testing each year (“Animal Testing” 4). With all things considered, animal testing should be looked upon as animal cruelty due to the harsh effects from the many products tested on the innocent.

Animal testing has become a controversial issue among many people in the world today. Some of these people involved in this controversial debate believe that animal testing is unethical and should be replaced by other methods. The other group of people in this debate believe that animal testing is necessary in order to research new products that cannot be tested on humans. Traditional animal testing forces animals to undergo numerous experiments for different forms of research. Medical, cosmetic, and many other types of research experiments use animals to provide the results on how the new product may affect humans. There are many people that support the use of alternative methods to animal research and then

Alternatives in animal testing has been a huge controversial debate around the world for years. Many researchers and scientists try to stray away from the term “alternatives” because to them, it suggests that no animals whatsoever can be completely replaced. 1 The CAAT, the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, is based on the principles of the ‘3Rs’: replacement, reduction, and refinement. Replacement basically means the way it sounds, the animals are replaced by other methods not involving animals such as in vitro techniques, which contain human cells and tissue models that can imitate real life organs of the human body. Reduction and refinement, the other two Rs, means to cut down the number of animals used in a particular study

Evidently, applying information from animal research to humans can be problematic. Problems of extrapolation are inevitable when researchers use animals to model and study human diseases. Inefficient products sold on the market can cause great liability and expense if buyers find the commodity inefficient, harmful, or generally unproductive. If buyers are not willing to buy the product and the demand for the product declines, then that would mean thousands of animal lives were wasted on a commodity that was not even successful in the market. Daniel G. Hackam, M.D., and Donald A. Redelmeier, M.D., state in their “Translation of Research Evidence From Animals to Human,” that “The majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the

Animal testing has long played a part in the science of testing, and it still plays a very important role in the medical world. Testing on animals in order to create a cure for AIDS is one thing, but testing on animals for human vanity is another. Animal testing is used to test the safety of a product. It has kept some very unsafe substances out of the cosmetic world. However, in this day in age, animal testing is not the only way to test the safety of a product. Animal testing in cosmetics has decreased over the years. However, it is still used by many companies in America. Animal testing is not only cruel, but it is also unnecessary in today’s advanced scientific world.