Animal Testing For The Sole Benefit Of Humans

979 Words4 Pages
For years, there has been a debate regarding the use of animals in medical testing for the sole benefit of humans. Many people believe that testing on nonhuman animals solve the many issues that humans face, but most of the time animals are exploited and put through painful experimental processes. The purpose of this paper is to examine the possible alternatives to animal testing and the evaluate whether there is a reduction in animals being used for experiments. The author of this paper will examine four journal articles titled as the following: Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of Alternatives, Scientists and Animal Research: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?, Strategic Focus on 3R Principles Reveals Major Reductions in the Use of Animals in Pharmaceutical Toxicity Testing, No Animals Harmed: Toward a Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Testing. Each journal article highlights different arguments of the said problem and reveals information about animal testing that many may not be aware of. The author will summarize all four journal articles and apply a response to each one.
Joel Marks, the writer of the Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of Alternatives journal, aims to express the reason why alternatives to animal testing should not be considered. Marks (2012) starts out by stating that “it is common to argue that animal experimentation is justified by its essential contribution to the advancement of medical science” (p. 1). According to Marks, this argument contains an empirical claim that

More about Animal Testing For The Sole Benefit Of Humans

Get Access