The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

It is not often that one sees the gruesome ways of animal experimentation in person. In short, it is the use of non-human animals in labs to find variables that affect the behavior of the human biological system (Google). Many people-like the PETA organization or the Humane Society-oppose these practices, but even this opposition is not enough to stop testing from happening for things such as cosmetics testing, chimpanzee experimentation, and genetically engineered farm animals. Although some of the testing produces positive results-such as a drug working-it is at the expense of millions of tortured animals; therefore, a simple solution would be to prohibit the use of animals in research.

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

What comes to mind when thinking about animal experimentation? Thoughts of innocent, lovable animals being stabbed with sharp needles? Well, that is not exactly the case, as animal experimentation plays a very important role in human health today. However, the idea of animals testing has become quite a controversial topic. Over the past few decades, there has been an extensive debate over the use of animals in medical and product testing. The majority of people seem to think that it is an unnecessary measure. Protests, threats, and even property damage has occurred because of the dispute between the two sides of this debate. A good majority of these protesters are unaware of the benefits animal testing brings to the human race, as well as

Almost every medicine that can be found in an average person’s medicine cabinet has been tested on an animal at one point or another. A government funded corporation called the Food and Drug Administration, abbreviated as the FDA, is in charge of making sure that all drugs, cosmetics, biological products, and more are efficient, secure, and safe for human usage. The FDA will not allow any drug to be released or sold to the human population if it has not first been tested on animals. In fact, when a drug is first created it is tested on animals before humans are even allowed to test the drug at clinical trial centers. Whether or not animal testing should be done for scientific purposes, has been a widely argued topic for many years

The use of animal testing to conduct research on medical and pharmaceutical products is a divisive and controversial subject. The main arguments against animal testing are the inhume conditions in which animals are kept, and the suffering inflicted upon test subjects (Van der Zee; July 18, 2013). Despite the ethical issues with animal testing, an equally compelling argument can be made about the need for this practice to minimize risks to human test subjects. Throughout the years, animal research has been essential to the development of ground breaking medical discoveries such as penicillin even if such discoveries came at the expense of millions of animals that may have suffered or died during or because of these experiments (Lobanovska & Pilla, 2017). This paper intends to establish that despite its drawbacks, animal testing is a necessary evil for the sake of scientific progress.

It can help in improving and protecting humans’ health as animals are biologically similar to human. This has enabled scientists and doctors to discover different types of treatment to cure certain diseases. However, there are some on the other hand who hold the views that animal testing does not play an important role in the medical field as animal testing is expensive and at the same time it is inhumane and cruel to carry out the procedures on living animals that can bring harm to them and destroy their entire

Before a particular medicine or treatment is offered for human use, there are tested by scientist in animals to see their effectiveness. There are positive sides of animal testing.

control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.” Without that testing, humans may be exposed to dangerous medications and surgeries. The history of animal testing has gone as far back as the third and fourth centuries. Animal testing pros include a longer life expectancy for humans, in addition to a healthier life made possible by analyzing the data from testing.

Human doing harmful things to animals by using them in the laboratory. Laboratory is not a place for animals to stay there. The animals that researcher used for testing are mice, pig, cat, dog, monkey, and others. They were suffering alive by human being. Think about what if animal treated us like the way we treated them, we will open our mind. Animal have feelings like us and they should treat with respect. Animals were used to develop anesthetics to prevent human pain and suffering during surgery. Yes, animal testing helps many human life, but can we save their lives using human? It is not fair for them to be use by human as we live on the same planet. Moreover, animal testing is harmful and painful for any kind of animal to endure. Yet, animal testing happened many years ago and until now. The animal lovers fight hard to prevent animal testing. Last couple years, the percentage of animal testing in the United Kingdom has decreased. Scientist used them for medical research and to study about it. Physician try testing the animal before touching any human being. Now a day, people have different beliefs about using the animals to test them. Some people will agree with testing animal, but some will disagree with it. Especially today generation, new technology were made so they try to use less animal testing. Instead of using living creature, we should use technologies to help us find out what we need to do. Therefore, animal testing should not be use in lab under any circumstances.

Each year over 100 million animals are abused and tortured by US labs. There must be an elimination of this testing because it is inhumane to treat animals in that manner, there is also different methods of testing products that don't involve animals, and lastly, many countries around the world already have taken the giant step in eliminating the testing.

It shows clearly that animal testing is very cruel and inhumane, because scientist force them to eat and drink just for experiment. “For example: forcing dogs to inhale cigarette smoke did not show a link to lung cancer; Flossing, an arthritis medication, tested safe in monkeys but caused deaths in humans; and the recalled diet drug fen-phen caused no heart damage in animals, while it did in humans--just a small sampling of volumes of examples.” (NEAVS-- New England anti-vivisection society)

Animals testing has been one the issues where people are fighting overtime because of its ethical. Even though some results of tests are successfully work on people, but many people are still fighting for the animal’s rights. They believe that animals should have their own rights to be live a free life to where they belong just like their species. In scientists point of view, animals have been one of the main subjects to do test on, but a lot of them are currently looking forward to use and develop alternatives for the cruel act of animal testing.

Like Regan, I also regard myself as an advocate for animal rights, and therefore part of the animal rights movement. The torture and killing of innocent non-human animals needs to be stopped; this includes animal testing for biomedical research and in science, commercial animal agriculture, and fur farming. The termination of these lives is extremely cruel. But most of all, Animals are viewed as only existing for mankind and this is major flaw. As Regan stated, “the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us.” When crossed with ethics, it creates a dilemma. The use of animals as a resource for human needs is not necessary.

When people think about animal testing they think of animals that are being tortured and killed to find out a new medical treatment. The definition of “Animal testing” is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study. Animal testing usually focuses on finding a cure for a disease, but keeping an animal to see if a certain kind of disease can be cured using an animal first is not right. Animals should not be used for research because it is cruel, it is unreliable, and it is expensive.

Animals have had a role in scientific research since the advent of modern medicine in early Greece around the year 300 BC (Hajar, M.D.). However, in recent years, a growth in attention and funding has led to an increase in the number of animals bred and raised for the sole purpose of use in testing. With this increase has come the division in opinion of whether or not scientists should continue their use of mammals and amphibians in their research or abandon such a practice for newer, potentially more accurate methods, such as free-standing human tissue cells (Ferdowsian). Regardless of one’s personal stance, it is hard to ignore the benefits animal testing has had on humanity. Testing cosmetics and medicine on mammals, for example, can filter out products which might yield a harmful result in humans. The utilitarian viewpoint cites benefits such as this. Animal Ethics, a nonprofit seeking to evaluate both sides of the ethics argument surrounding a host of animal issues justifies the utilitarian idea that “...the use of nonhuman animals can be acceptable only if the happiness their exploitation causes is greater than the harm it causes” (Animal Ethics). The opposing side, those who believe in inherent value, claim that animals should be given equal moral consideration as humans would, based on their capacity to suffer (Foëx). Both views hold merit, though as the cosmetic and medical technology industries grow, we as a nation must confront the issue of whether or not animals