Arguments Against Animal Testing

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.

The use of animals in scientific research has hugely increased in the last few years. A research conducted by Dr. Hadwen Trust suggests that approximately 115 millions animals are used in scientific experimentation every year (qtd in “Fact and figures”). Animal testing, also known as animal vivisection, is a process before human clinical trials, where animals are used in experiments to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of drugs (Biology dictionary). Although some scientists argue that animal testing is necessary to ensure safety, animal testing is unreliable, dangerous and unnecessary.

Back in 2006 slate.com conducted a study that showed that “the source for humans suffering may be the dozens promising drugs that are put aide when they have side effects in animals that are not relevant for humans.

There is much debate over whether animal testing should be allowed or not. Some people think that it is not essential to sacrifice animals for human benefits because they are being abused and tortured severely during experiments. Some others who stand against animal testing claim that humans eliminate many lives on earth in order to safe humans’ lives, so there is no justice because even animals have the right to live on earth, yet these people do not consider the truth that animals are being used in the food industry or in the laboratories. Thus, if someone asks how many animals are being used in the laboratory experiments around the world every year, who can give an accurate answer? It can be one, ten, or fifty million. It is difficult to find the exact figure on this question because people only read news through mass media such as having a new vaccine which can help human avoid uterus cancer or a new medicine help humans cure strokes, but they also need to know how many lives of the animals would have to take in order to get theses vaccines. Therefore, some organizes think that animal testing is one of the most disturbing experiments ever, and it should be banned. Despite many controversies with opposing opinions, a compromise can be made in order to reduce the use of animals in the laboratory experiments.

Animal testing has served many purposes in the development in medicine. Without the use of animal testing, humans would have no knowledge of the effects of a medicine, vaccine or product. The practice of using animals in research studies began with William Harvey's experiments in the seventeenth century. Harvey explained “By using different species to conduct his study, Harvey aimed to demonstrate blood circulation (Human Health).” Since then the abundance of animal research became the basis of medical, and scientific studies. Animals have made major breakthroughs in both the scientific and medical realm, however, the use of such testing is often considered inhumane and unjust. I will be evaluating

Mohandas K. Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. What, then, does it say about the people of the United States, for allowing the deaths of millions of innocent animals for the benefit of research, that in most cases is not even useful? 100 million animals are killed each year due to animal testing or experimentation (PETA,1). In the past, it was acceptable to use animal testing for scientific research, but now that there are other viable alternatives to the testing of innocent animals, such as in-vitro, stem cell testing, non-incasing imaging techniques, and micro-dosing. Animal testing should only be used in cases where said drug or treatment will treat life-threatening diseases. Animal testing in this day and age is both unnecessary and cruel, as there are multiple alternatives and the most of the time is not useful in human research.

95% of drugs fail in human trials despite promising results in animal tests. This is because of the different genes between a human and an animal. The failure of the drugs can also be caused due to the fact that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicated by animal tests. Another piece of evidence that has been brought to the attention of many is that the testing of animals is a waste. Only 6% of 4,300 international companies involved in drug development have registered a new drug with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1950. Even those drugs that are approved are not universally effective due to individual reactions, the top ten highest-grossing drugs in the U.S. only help between 1 in 4 and 1 in 25 people who take them. The last reason why animal testing should be reconsidered is common sense but overlooked. Animals are much more different from humans than imagined. Animals are incapable of being diagnosed of the same diseases that humans are. Their bodies do not allow them to have illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia. A simple drug like aspirin is toxic to many animals, including cats, mice and rats and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing

According to ProCon.org, an online resource used to research controversial issues, the United States alone uses twenty-six million animals for scientific and commercial testing. Testing products on animals is acceptable for various reasons.

There is no denying that animal testing has led to many medical discoveries which have saved many lives. The first pancreases taken from dogs directly led to the discovery of insulin, which has saved many diabetics’ lives. This discovery is the back-bone to allowing animal testing to continue because it is proof that animal testing can lead to lives being saved. Animal testing is a controversy that has lasted for over 30 years, and it will continue to be the center of many debates until an equivalent form of testing is discovered that no longer puts animals in the line of fire. But until that day arrives, the question still stands. Should animals be used as test subjects? Though there are two answers to this question, each making logical points, I say that animals should no longer be used.

Have you ever lost a loved one or even heard of someone passing away from a preventable disease that could’ve been stopped if the medicine to cure them was tested? About 21,000 people died around the world today from preventable illnesses. That number can easily be reduced to a much smaller number if doctors and scientists had the capability to test medications on animals. However, some argue that making an animal suffer is terrible, who would you rather want suffering? Your best friend? Or a random rat or mouse? The choice is yours. Animal testing should be used because, it can save lives, there is no other way to test the medicine properly and they help us to figure out what to change in the medicine so that it works the next time.

When it comes to the topic of Animal Testing, most of us will readily agree that alternative methods do exist that can replace the need for animals. Where this agreement usually ends is on animals are different from humans and therefore make poor test subjects. I agree that there are other methods but I also disagree that the animal are poor test subjects because a drug might work on a cell in a test tube but how will it work on a human. We don’t know until we test a living creature.

The state that animals from dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, snakes, primates and plenty more species are seen in is schocking. More than 100 million animals suffer and die in the U.S alone every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests as well in medical training exercises, and curiosity driven medical experiences. Examples of forcing animals to do horridus things. Researchers force animals to inhale toxic fumes, force feeding pesticides, dripping chemicals in animals sensitive eyes, deprived of food and water, long span of time in physical restraint, burning, cause them to be crippled, and abused. For example when researchers did the Draize test to see if irritation was caused with shampoos, involves rabbits incapacitated in stocks with there eyes held open by clips for multiple days so they don't blink away the product Animals are suffering and dying because of these experiments and nothing is even happening in exchange of that suffering and death.

This article made me understand more about the research scientists undergo using animals to conduct their research. UK scientists have

After going through all this torture, animals do not receive any type of anesthesia or painkillers. Instead, they are put back in a cage for further experimentation. The animals that become useless or invaluable to continue to be tested on, end up being euthanatized. The worst part from all the painful procedures animals undergo is that most of the results come out to be unreliable for humans. The reason being is that animals’ bodies are not as complex as humans. In addition, the environment the animals are held in captivity is not adequate since they are under stress. Therefore, the results on the animals would never be the same as if they were tested in the human habitat. Knowing that the outcomes in the laboratories are not dependable, it does not make sense to continue experimenting on

Alternatives to animal testing were proposed to overcome some of the drawbacks associated with animal experiments and avoid the unethical procedures. A strategy of 3 Rs is being applied which stands for reduction, refinement and replace- ment of laboratory use of animals (Ranganatha and Kuppast, 2012). Different methods and alternative organisms are ap- plied to implement this strategy. The concept of replacement of animals was first discussed in 1957 by Charles Hume and William Russell at the Universities Federation for animal wel- fares (UFAW) (Balls, 1994). Russell and Burch (1959) sug- gested some ways to make the animal experiments more humanly, which was later called as 3 Rs. This approach moti- vates the use of minimum number of animals i.e. ‘reduction’ in the total number of animals used in an experiment. The use of animals must be