The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

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.

Medicines used on humans have saved hundreds-of-millions of lives and has prolonged the average human lifespan by nearly 50 years. Many of these medicines had to be tested on animals to make sure they are safe to use on humans. Without the use of animal testing, these medical miracles would not have been possible. Animal test subjects have historically been critical in furthering our understanding of physiology, health, and disease, and cessation of this could risk harm to humans and lead to a decrease in the speed of new medical advancements.

Over 100 million animals are killed in experiments in the U.S. alone each year, according Laboratory Animal Resource Center at UC San Francisco. At the University of Missouri a study was done were they intentionally damaged the corneas of the dogs and given a topical acid treatment that was supposed to heal the eye, it did not, and the beagles were eventually put to death. Because of the cruel nature of animal testing, there should be an alternative.

Libby was a dog who lived in animal testing laboratory Professional Laboratory and Research Services Inc. In this laboratory, pharmaceutical companies would pay the Professional Laboratory to infect the dogs and cats with worms, fleas, and ticks. The laboratory would then force feed the animals, smear toxic chemicals on their faces, kick, throw, and drag dogs by their necks, and scream cruel things to the animals. In fall of 2010, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) investigated the Professional Laboratory and Research Services Inc. it was then shut down. From that point on over 250 animals were rescued including Libby, who is now a happy and playful girl who enjoys playing tug-a-war and snuggling under the covers. Without the PETA investigating the laboratory though, what might have happened to Libby, and all of the other 250 animals? Pain, suffering, and death. Animals should not be used for scientific or commercial testing because they are poor, defenseless creatures that have to go through pain, suffering, and even sacrifice their one life for human treatment.

What would you do if you were forced to live in filthy conditions, subjected to various tortures and horrifying ordeals? This is the life of an animal kept as a tool for scientific research. The debate over human animal testing has been ongoing for many years, starting as early as the 19th century. However, animal testing has been recorded as early as 500 BC, and has been practiced ever since. People have been advocating for more humane practices for animal testing since the 19th century, when Queen Victoria publicly displayed her disgust at these practices. Scientists should not continue animal testing because there are alternatives that are safer for the animals, the treatment of said animals has been shown to be inhumane, and the testing done on some of these animals does not even translate to humans.

Animal testing has been a topic of debate for decades. Traumatic pictures of animals being abused cover social media pages. It's no doubt the tests are inhumane, breach hundreds of animal rights, and cause unimaginable suffering and pain but, is it all necessary?

In 2017 alone, over one hundred animals died due to animal testing. 3.4 million of those animals were common household pets. If people go to jail for animal neglect and abuse, then why is animal testing permitted? This is a debatable topic because some people believe animal testing is acceptable for science and medicine. It is argued that animal testing is necessary for products even though pet possessed animals are victims tortured, causes human health issues from faulty results, and better alternatives have been show cased.

When buying cosmetics or medication at the store, do you ever think about where it came from or whom it was tested on? Animals have been used in research for the past couple of decades and it continues to be a topic of serious debate to this day. Animal testing involves the process of subjecting animals to clinical trials rather than human trials in order to test the effectiveness of certain drugs and products. The debate is whether or not it is morally right or wrong to use animals during experimentation. Many scientists argue that it is necessary to use animal research in saving lives, but animal rights activists argue that is unnecessary and inhumane. Both arguments have valid points and although animal testing has offered a lot of medical advances and knowledge over the past couple of years, that would’ve been nearly impossible otherwise, it is an inhumane process, and should be limited, if not ended all together. Animal testing should be eliminated for various reasons. The first and most important reason is that it is cruel and causes stress to the animals. They are put in cages where they undergo painful and stressful experimentation. Animals are quite intelligent and they can feel emotions just like we can. They should be allowed the freedom to experience a normal life. Another reason to eliminate testing altogether is that there are other alternatives that are more ethical. For the most part, animal testing doesn’t always provide the exact results as they would on a

Animal testing started back in the late nineteenth century when french biologist, Louis Pasteur, [7] tested anthrax on sheep to show how important vaccines really are. Despite the advantages that may have come from animal testing, it is an extremely controversial topic to this very day. People prefer to look at animals as they would humans; something with emotions, feelings, and even similar body parts. Based on PETA, over one million animals are tested on each year in U.S. laboratories [1] and what is being tested on them can range from cosmetics to household cleaners. Although the companies that are involved in the testing are being blamed for the countless brutality to animals, it is being done for the safety of humans. Is animal testing really necessary or is it doing more bad than good for business?

After three dogs were forced to ingest a test substance every day for five days at Charles River Laboratories, they experienced labored breathing and a high heart rate. They became cold to the touch, were not able to be aroused and were seen with the test substance in their mouths and on their bodies. One dog died and the other two were euthanized one to two days later. (“Examples of Severe Animal Suffering in Laboratories”)

Thirdly, there are many alternatives that now exist that can replace the harmful use of animals. Methods such as in vitro testing, advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers are ways that are more inexpensive than animal testing and provide better results. For example, in vitro tests can be used where scientists study the cell cultured in a petri dish. These tests can produce more relevant results than animal testing because they use human cells which are more accurate. This methods and the other methods are not altered by the difference in species making it easier to apply the tests to humans, taking less time and money. In addition, Harvard’s Wyss Institute has created “organs-on-chips” that contain human cells grown in a state-of-the-art system to mimic the structure and function of human organs and organ systems. The chips can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug testing, and toxicity testing and have been shown to replicate human physiology, diseases, and drug responses more accurately than harsh animal experiments do. If these tests can be used rather than the testing on animals, then why do we still murder primates for unnecessary reasons?

The use of animals in the medical realm has been prominent for a long time, in fact, it dates back to ancient Greek times. Although there are many controversies surrounding it there are those who object the use of animal experimentation in any research sphere including the medial aspect. Some argue that there is a need for animals in the medical field, suggesting that animal experiments are necessary for the advancement of medicine. Although the causes that give rise to animal testing may sound justified. Animal testing itself has given rise to those who oppose it, the animal rights activists. The use of animals may have been necessary to the medical domain in the past, but there are plenty reasons why animal experimentation should not exist today or nor in the future. Such as the ethicality of using animal, the options of a variety of alternative methods and lastly the questionable scientific accuracy of the research.

Did you know over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US labs every year? Animal testing for scientific research has become an epidemic in the scientific community. These tests have been proven to be inefficient and unnecessary but the animals usually experience immense amounts of pain and fear. Throughout this paper, I will highlight key points and provide a reliable amount of information to prove animal testing is unneeded, tortures, and inhuman.

Research can be done in many ways. However, some ways are not as ethical as others,

“Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and ambushed in US labs every year” (dosomething. org). Many different types of animals are being tested for multiple reasons such as cosmetics, medicines, pesticides, drugs and different cleaning and germ killing household products. There has been a lot of controversy and debates about testing products on animals. Both scientists and animal activists have voiced their opinions and concerns on the issue.