Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Animals can be burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused as a result of testing. And the list could go on forever. The way animals are being mistreated and tested on should be against the law. There is a different ways to do research other than killing and abusing animals. There are many alternate test that scientist can use to do there research without harming animals. Alternative test are defined as test that use the three “R’s”, a test that replaces a procedure that uses animals with one that doesn’t, a test that reduces the number of animals used in a procedure, and test that refine a procedure to cause less pain to the animal.(11 Facts about…)

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

Animal testing is the cause of many controversial arguments. Is it ethical? Is it truely the best option? The answer to both of these questions is no. Animal testing is both cruel and unreliable. There are many alternatives to animal testing that would be safer for humans and animals alike. Although it cannot be completely eliminated at this point of time, steps need to be taken to minimize animal experimentation as much as possible.

“An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the united states for scientific and commercial testing” (ProCon.org). We are rapidly using up the earth’s supply of small animals. “A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% agreed that the use of animals in research is essential (ProCon.org). Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked up in cages and are getting killed for scientific tests to create products and medicines. Thus, animal testing is cruel and inhumane to be experimenting on animals, there are alternative methods available to researchers to replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.

If the test results are not giving us correct answers then why do we continue to put our money into the research? When it comes to testing animals, there are multiple costly thing that are needed, for example, money is needed for an institution, feeding and housing the animals for many months, and the most expensive need, the drugs being used in the experiments. (Klazema, June 13, 2014.) Also, the animals are becoming very expensive because most of them are specifically bred for certain tests. American author and clinical researcher Dr. Neal Barnard M.D. made a very good point when he said, “Not only are the studies themselves often lacking face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs.” With this statement he is simply saying that people are wasting their money when they test animals (Murnaghan, November 7, 2016). One way in which we can prevent all of this wasteful time, money, and animal lives, is to come up with an alternative for animal testing. These alternatives are much more reliable, resemble actual humans more accurately, and are less expensive, so we can stop wasting government money. With today’s technology, animals are not the perfect solution for finding cures for diseases or testing the safety of cosmetic products. Some scientists have interest in testing that does not use a whole animal. Possible alternatives could be animal organs, animal or human cells, or computer modeling. The future of testing is also looking to use less complex organisms like bacteria, flies, or even plants because they are lower in moral standings than animals (Liou, July 6,

Using helpless animals for the benefit of human beings goes back thousands of years. A common theme has been present: the use of these animals has been necessary for survival. Of late, these essential sacrifices have metamorphosed into yield-less speculations. Animal testing is wrong based on these premises: there are available alternatives to direct testing on live animals, the results acquired rom the tests are inaccurate and repetitive, and ultimately it is speciesism, which is comparable to racism and sexism. Today’s society has progressed in other aspects, it is time for in-obligatory animal testing to be abolished. Cruelty to animals is inexcusable, avoidable and thoroughly repelling.

Thalidomide is a medicine that is used for nausea. Many women who used it did not know that they were pregnant. Once they gave birth, they realized their child was severely deformed and ask how that could be? Scientists gave Thalidomide to pregnant rabbits and also gave birth

while there are many controversial thoughts on many different factors that apply to animal testing, I find it to be that many of the pros outweighs the costs that comes animal testing such as the ethical or moral reason. Although when including the ethical or moral consequences that comes with animal testing, the benefits to mankind and improvements to our societies and sciences in many diverse ways. Which leads me to strive towards the many benefits that comes with animal testing even with some of the consequences that comes with the testing. Many people will jump to the conclusion that animal testing is always done in a harsh manner, how the morals and ethics have been the same since way back when, and how the outcomes that occur when testing on animals isn’t worth the chance of them getting hurt. Yet this is not the case.

Because of animal testing, we have multiple life-saving cures and vaccines such as a vaccine for Hepatitis B (ProCon.org, 2016). Another sound reason for animal testing is that animals are similar to us; in fact, chimps and mice have a close DNA match to humans (ProCon.org, 2016). Not to mention, animals are a more suitable alternative than human test subjects when the tests could put a human in danger (ProCon.org, 2016). It is preferred to harm the animals than the humans. Another positive aspect of animal testing is that the animals could benefit from the test themselves; as an example, chlamydia vaccines have slowed down koala extinction (ProCon.org, 2016). Moreover, the alternative to animal testing is computer models and cells, but that does not compare to living models because single cells do not show the effect on the body and computers can be accurate if only information from the subject is entered (ProCon.org, 2016). When doing animal testing, it is highly regulated and abide by the standards of AWA (ProCon.org, 2016). In addition, animal testing must occur humanely for the animal’s sake and to ensure reliable results (ProCon.org, 2016). Which is why there are various reasons animal testing is

“USA spends $16 billion dollars annually for animal testing at taxpayers' expense and is subject to massive waste and mismanagement of taxpayers' dollars” (Terrance). Governments don’t fund for the animal testing that is held taxpayers’ money is used in animal research without them knowing it. With the money used for animal testing, many other alternatives are created.

Animal testing is appalling. Research on live animals has been around since at least 500 BC; people and scientists still think it isn’t such a bad thing.

Laboratory facilities that houses animals for experimentation, spend way too much money because they are paying for food, shelter, the mediation they use on the animal. According to the article, “ Animal testing Cons: What Every Person Should Know” by April Klazema explain the cost of animal experimentation, “During the experiment process, the animals involved must be taken care of, and the cost of the drugs used on the animals, which likely cost thousands of dollars in scientific research money to produce”. The cost of keep animals as test subjects is expensive and that amount of money that the government is spending is very high. Michael Bastasch states in the article “Feds Spend Up to $14.5 Billion Annually on Animal Testing”, the amount the government spends on animal testing,“The government spends as much as 14.5 billion per year on animal experimentation”. The expenses that are being used for animal testing is a waste of money because there are other less expensive alternatives to animal testing. The good news is that scientist have come up with many new alternative to animal testing. There has been a breakthrough with in vitro testing which consists of using human cells and tissues. Not only is in vitro a new alternative, there is computer modeling techniques and studies with human volunteers. PETA discuss in their article “Alternatives to Animal Testing”, the alternatives to animal testing, “Today—because experiments on animals are cruel, expensive, and generally inapplicable to humans—the world’s most forward-thinking scientists have moved on to develop and use methods for studying diseases and testing products that replace animals and are actually relevant to human health. These modern methods include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies

This article sums up the fact that we should move away from, but not completely get rid of animal testing. Since about the 1950’s until 2013 the public support of animal testing has dropped about 33%. That number is expected to continually drop with younger generations, not just because of compassion and ethics, but because of the scientific community striving for improvement. One of the main problems with animal testing is that while humans and other animals may be similar, they are not the same. Because of this, side effects are missed, money is wasted, and still, there is only an 8% chance of a new chemical entity being approved for humans. Even with such a small percentage, animal testing is still required. To break away from animal testing

Over the years, it has been a vast ethical and legal debate about using animals for cosmetic testing. Recently the European Union (EU) has taken steps to stop animal testing. According to PETA, the EU has banned the sale of any cosmetic ingredients that have been tested on animals. This means that any cosmetic company who wishes to sell in the EU, must cease animal testing. Unfortunately, this has incited little change in the United States and its views toward animal testing. Even though there are so many cruelty free options available, many manufactures in the U.S. still continue to experiment with animals. What is even more horrific is that the U.S. does not require animal testing to be conducted to determine if a product is safe or not.

Needles, knives, burns, hives, rashes, and scratches; what does this sound like to you? To me it sounds like horror movie full of torture and pain. In reality, that is what animals have to endure on a daily basis. In North America, there are no bans on animal testing for cosmetic purposes. Which means, animals have to be poked, scratched, burned and tortured so that we can benefit from the products it produces. As stated by Suzi who runs a blog based on cruelty free cosmetics, in all of the makeup companies in the world, a total of 87 companies are cruelty free (2016). This is quite a large number, but it is definitely not large enough. Most of the makeup brands that are sold in Shoppers Drug Mart, a very common pharmacy across Canada, are