Animals Testing Vs Animal Testing

Due to animal testing, one animal dies in a laboratory in the United States every second, in Japan every two seconds and in the United Kingdom every twelve seconds. Billions of non-human animals have been burnt, crushed, sliced, electrocuted, poisoned with toxic chemicals, and psychologically tormented because of medical research. Alternatives for these experiments have shown to be less expensive and can be used repeatedly. We are in desperate need of reliable medical research. Why not experiment and receive more accurate finding for our medical needs? Why not use people who didn’t think twice about giving up their so-called human-rights when

As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.

Approximately 225 million animals are used for testing every year. Billions have been killed in the process. ("Questions and Answers About Biomedical Research.”) How can this be allowed? Isn’t it cruel to use animals to test products for humans? Many animal rights activists say, “yes” to this question. However, scientists argue it is necessary and animal research can help save human lives. There are probable arguments for both sides. But the dangers of using animals to test products for human use weighs an even greater risk than not using the animals. Alternatives are much more ethical.

Throughout the years the use of animals in medical research has been a hot debate around the world. Although animal testing may be cruel and inhumane, thousands of humans are saved thanks to the research that animals supply researchers with. Animals testing have taken over our knowledge of medicine and treatments to a whole different level. Animal testing also does this in a cheap and effective way. Without animals testing out knowledge wouldn’t be up to date, in other words animals’ testing is good.

For many years, the field of science has used animals in medical experiments worldwide, because of this innocent animals are being killed everyday. They are being tested with new drugs, new treatments, and by many makeup companies. Connecticut recently celebrated the passage of the “Beagle Freedom Law”, a law that requires laboratories to work with charities and rescue groups to find homes for research cats and dogs. Animals are being tested so humans do not have to be but animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings, although animals are the closest thing to humans. Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of innocent animal subjects. Over 100 million animals suffer a year from testing. Testing animals is a lot more expensive than alternative methods and it is wasting government research dollars. Animal testing is not only a bad idea, but it is also inhuman and it should not be tolerated. The FDA should stop allowing animal testing. An animal does not give out the same results on a test than a human would.

Scientists have been using animals to test medical treatments that could be used on humans, if it does well with the animal. Testing on an animal could help find a new discovery, but it could also put the animal in danger. Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US labs every year. A 2013 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. Animals should not be used to test medical procedures and treatments that would be later on used for humans.

The bad use of animal testing is cruel but also sometimes ineffective. “Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel and inhumane but also often ineffective. Animals do not get many of the human diseases that people do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease, or schizophrenia. There have been past occasions where drugs passed on animals weren’t even safe. There is no excuse for animal testing in today’s techy world, there are now many alternatives for animal testing that would put an end to the pain and suffering endured by these innocent animals during human testing.

A life can be taken or created in a matter of seconds and with that has come the miracles of modern medicine. People have come to expect science to save lives, prevent illness, relieve suffering and improve the quality of life. The means of curing, treating and preventing diseases are not achieved by magic or accident. Medical advances are gained through years of intensive research -- research in which laboratory animals have played, and continue to play, a critical role. Opponents of animal testing are wrongfully determined that this process is completely unethical.

Regardless of the devastating facts behind animal testing, supporters of using laboratory animals argue that without animal testing it would be hard for researchers to guarantee that drugs and medical procedures are safe for use on humans (“Update: Animal Testing”). They are ignoring the animals’ well-being. If scientists were dissecting live humans, people would be disgusted and call that murder. Animals and people may look different, but we are both living things. Animals are just unable to speak for themselves, so scientists choose to treat them like inanimate objects, as if their

Following along, testing on animals is inhumane, and animal testing, an unbearable act, is universally unwanted by all. Not just animal lovers peering in through the outside disapprove or have a disliking for the tests, but also those from within (and not just the animals) have a distaste for the tests too. Animal testing may hope to advance humans (and lifestyles), whilst preventing or delaying deaths and unnecessarily assuring a cosmetic’s safety, but (ironically) at the expense or reverse of other species. If the animals tested on in the United States were all from just one generally beloved species, such as canines (or even people), then there would be an outrage and atrocity, but there is a preference over which species get tested upon and which do not-quite hypocritical. Chimps are humanity’s closest living relative, sharing 98% to 99% of DNA, and as of September 14th, 2015, testing on them has been illegal in the United States (after being declared an endangered species). In "Fighting cancer: Animal research at Cambridge," Professor Gerard Evans pronounces that working with orgasms that are more alike to humans, than mice, is possible, but experimenting and testing on such organisms would (further) raise issues or questions, as they, such as primates, may be or are of measurable intelligence (among other considerations). In “Fighting cancer: Animal research at Cambridge,” Professor Gerard Evans also denotes, “Mice are relatively easy to breed and maintain and keep

Animal tests are more expensive than different methods. They also waste government money. Cancer study can cost two-to-four million dollars, but animal research spends fourteen billion of its thirty one billion dollars annual budget on research for animals. Normal study test on illnesses cost a lot of money, but it still is lower than what animal testing cost. Animals testing cost a lot and most of the time test fail, so it just wasted billions of dollars that could of helped someone or something that would have made a good effect. Also sixteen billion dollars of taxpayers money is spent on animal testing. The government is wasting their money on testing, but so is American citizens. If testing has to be done, the tester should pay,

Have you heard of dogs in space, well during the space race the Russians and the United States sent animals into space for test subjects? Yes, they didn't want to send humans into space because they didn't think it was safe. I fully agree with this claim and I hope you do to after this essay. I think it is necessary to send animals into space because it is a lot better than human testing, and animals don't live as long as humans.

The use of non-animal based safety tests is generally more relevant to humans as animal

Unfortunately, there are no better alternatives to animal testing and experimentation. And animal testing has proven itself to be both practical and a reasonably accurate means of testing. So in conclusion, animal testing highlights the fine line between ethics and practical need, and thus becomes very subjective to each person. When doing Animal research it is important to always keep in mind that animals deserve as much respect as a human would, will being tested. Many medicines would not have been found without them being tested on animals.