Research Paper Against Animal Testing

Hajar, Rachel. "Alternative to Animal Testing." Heart Views, vol. 12, no. 1, 2011., pp. 39d I found the article that mentions how there can be many alternatives to animal testing. Lots of medicine and research have been very helpful to society

Animal testing is a cruel way to try and develop new products. There are several other and much safer options that will get better results and potentially save up to two million animals every single year. The Animal Welfare Act is in place but only minimally protects certain animals and leaves many others, up to 95%, vulnerable to atrocious fates. The animals not protected by this act (mostly small or considered house pets) are most widely used and not related closely to humans. There are several alternative methods but they are being neglected since they are new and not being enforced because of it. A few countries and states have banned certain aspect of animal testing but others are encouraging this cruelty.

Approximately 26 million animals are used every year in the United States alone for research and commercial testing (“Background of the Issue” 1). For years, legislators have debated the pros and cons of animal testing, and laws were passed to attempt to fix the inhumane treatment of the cute, innocent testing subjects, the animals. Although the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was revised numerous times, “the species most commonly used in experiments (mice, rats, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians) comprise 99% of all animals in laboratories” and are the animals that are specifically exempted from protection under the act (“Experiments on Animals” 2). A simple fix to animal cruelty during testing is to use alternative methods since human and animal bodies already vary greatly. For years, animal testing was the best option because there was no alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system; however, in the age of technology, there is no reason for millions of animals to be killed due to the severity of the testing. Therefore, animal testing should be banned because alternative methods provide more accurate results since human bodies are very different than animal bodies; furthermore, animal advocacy organizations should promote cruelty-free products more so customers know what to purchase and use.

To support or not support animal testing practices has been a long debated topic. Animals have been used in medical and cosmetic tests since the 1900s leading to numerous medical treatment breakthroughs and ensuring the safety of everyday products we use. Recently animal advocate groups have called for the abolishment of animal testing, causing a divide on whether or not to continue animal testing. In order to keep innovating new solutions for diseases that plague our communities and loved ones, allowing the use of animal testing to end preventable tragedies must occur.

Millions of animals suffer due to effects of testing they must endure. This testing is usually done unethically and causes major harm. It’s wrong to harm animals for the sake of testing products for society. Furthermore, animals are living creatures just like humans and should not be treated differently. While testing animals may be cheaper, it is morally wrong and causes many harmful side effects in animals.

Have you ever wondered why animals are used in experimentation? Each year over 100 million are killed due to experiments for biology lessons, medical training, chemical, drug, food, cosmetic testing, and curiosity driven experimentation. The better question is why? Why use animal when there are many alternatives. Animals may not be able to speak up for themselves but humans have a voice for them. Many people have participated in protest, taken surveys, and created organizations to protect animals from the cruelty.

There are more reasons for needing to switch to using alternative methods of testing than reasons why we need to keep using animals. With the use of animals in certain experiments, it calls for scientists to use them inhumanly, because there is no other way of doing it. Some doctors, while performing surgeries on animals, will not put them out or under anesthesia. The reason some doctors have to do this is because by putting the animals under anesthesia it may hinder their results. Scientists fear by putting animals out of their pain and misery they are skewing their data (Carbone et al.). It was once said that dosing and contaminating animals with toxic levels of chemicals was crucial for human health. But now with the option of alternative methods it is no longer needed therefore continuing to do tests like this would be simply inhumane and cruel (The times Editorial Board). Some areas of study such as toxicology, need an alternate system of tests that reduce animals use. The usage of animals has become a process that is time consuming and costly (Piersma et al.). With the advancement of technology, toxicology scientists can now look at the processes of toxins and where they begin and the affects of them. They can do all this without the use of an animal. Due to the use of more technology in their research, they are able to now study things at a more cellular level rather than an

Some groups that are on the supporting side of animal testing are Understanding Animal Research and Speaking of Research. In Understanding Animal Research, there are people like Wendy Jerrett, the Chief Executive, who has been working in health communications for almost 30 years. One of their main arguments is that “ while non-animal methods play an important part of biomedical research, they cannot replace all use of animals.” This statement does make sense, however, through research I have not found anything that cannot be altered to replace animal testing. Despite this, Speaking of Research brings up a good argument that can support the former one. People in Speaking of Research include Christine Archer, who is a registered veterinary technician. One of their arguments is that “ The success of many animal rights groups’ campaigns depend heavily upon the poor public understanding of animal research, uncountered misrepresentations of scientists and their work, and exploitation of the misconceptions and negative perceptions that many people have of the use of animals in the biomedical and behavioral sciences.” So, by their way of thinking, all the negative opinions about animal experimentation are only because of misunderstandings and the uneducated public.

When picking out your mascara or eyeliner do you ever stop and wonder what you are putting on your face? All kinds of chemicals go into our consumer products: How often do we stop to ask ourselves what exactly we’re using? Did you ever consider that maybe you are contributing to animal testing or worse, animal abuse?

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

Supporters of animal testing might say that the tests help find new research that gets us one step closer to curing many diseases but they are misguided. Research shows that animals have different structure when compared to human beings making them poor test subjects. Animals have significantly different anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences that make it hard to compare to humans. This fact proves that animal testing will get us nowhere in curing or helping humans in any way. Studies have shown that it creating an animal model that mimics the human model is nearly impossible . This statement is also false because animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments.If it misleads the researches then it does not make sense for animal testing to still exist. One example of this case is chemicals that are proven harmful for animals but proven beneficial for humans. One case of this incident is aspirin where it seemed to cause liver failure for animals but benefits

On the other hand, according to research, animal testing can be beneficial because it can be very accurate, and its less painful for an animal than for a human. However, The positives for not using animal testing outweighs the negatives. Animal testing should be banned because animals are being taken away from there homes to be used for testing, research can be done effectively without harming an animal or human, animal research causes harm to the animal. In conclusion animal testing is a horrible way to test products and should be

The focus of animal research has been characterized by three criteria, The Three R’s. “’The Three Rs’ are reduction, replacement and refinement. Here in the US, research communities are committed to supporting techniques that reduce the number of higher species used, replace animals with other models wherever/whenever possible, and refine tests to ensure the most humane conditions possible.” (Trull 2). Scientists try to keep the animals from being harmed as much as possible.

According to a result of pressures from animal support groups such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a number of large corporations have ceased all animals testing in recent years. These corporations include Amway, Benetton, Revlon, General Motors, and L’Oreal were recently added to the list, which used to subject animals to shocking tests. In Against Animal Testing, a booklet published by The Body Shop, a well-known cosmetics and bath company, that uses natural ingredients, like bananas, almonds, aloe Vera, chamomile, and Basil nut oil, as well as others safe for human usage is encouraged instead of testing on animals. According to PETA, all companies included on their cruelty-free list have signed PETA’s statement of

Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). People have different feelings for animals; many look upon animals as companions while others view animals as a means for advancing medical techniques or furthering experimental research. However individuals perceive animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics