The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

In our ever-changing world the race to find the best technological advancements has never been higher. Progress within the medical field has changed drastically in the last 50 years. “Health is driven by the technologies that cure the unhealthy. These technologies need to advance along with an advancing society. In the last five decades new and improved, less expensive, medicine has been produced” (Leonard). Behind all this advanced medicine are the technologies, or creatures, that are used to test and improve the medicine. Animals are used to test the drugs and medicine that are in route to be produced for human use. “The term "Animal Testing" refers to procedures performed on living animals for purposes of research into basic biology and diseases, assessing the effectiveness of new medicinal products” (Humane Society). There are people who side with, and agree that animal testing improves the lives of humans, and there are individuals who believe the harm this research brings to animals is unreasonable and can be prevented.

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.

Whether animal testing is considered to be useful or unnecessary in the development of medicine is an ongoing discussion. Animal testing is the issue Andrew Rowan and Jack Botting with Adrian Morrison discuss in both their articles. “Avoiding Animal Testing” was written in 2011 by Andrew Rowan and was published in The Scientist. Jack Botting along with Adrian Morrison are the authors of “Animals are Vital to Medicine,” which was published in the Scientific American. All three authors clearly state their position on this issue from the beginning of their articles, starting with each of their titles. In “Avoiding Animal

“Animals undergoing testing can be subjected to torture and suffering” (Humanity, 2017, p. 1). Some animals may be cured of their ailments and diseases, but not all. In some cases, the animal dies do to the treatment. Humane treatment of the animals is a valid concern, so the use of them in experiments has been greatly regulated. “This has led to the 3Rs campaign, which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use products” (Hajar, 2011, p. 1). The Animal Welfare Act was signed to protect certain animals from cruel treatment, but the animals chosen for testing aren’t covered by this act. Many people believe that animal testing is unethical since animals are

A long time of debates go back and forth on the rights of all animals with further argument or debates, do humans have the right to use animals on medical testing and lab use? There are several issues that can be placed in this argument this research will acknowledge four important topics in the rights of animal testing. Is it right to use animals for testing? Is it right to compare animal DNA to human DNA in these animal experiments? Is it right to use real animals instead of computers to generate results? Is it right to state animals are being protected and cared for while giving toxins to make them sick? Therefore, the question needs to be asked if animals should be used for scientific experiments in labs all across the globe.

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

This scholarly article's main focus is proving that the use of animals in medical testing is both unethical and unnecessary by providing evidence and multiple statistics. Its main points are that the results using of animal testing is very unreliable,

Animal experimentation is validated simple by the benefits it has created in both our medical fields and the veterinary field. The advancements over the past century are astonishing. Backed by the weight of scientific literature the case that animal experiments can produce scientifically valid results is clear, strong and sustainable. Protesters opinions on these matters often overlook any of the positives about testing, for instance, cosmetic testing is illegal in the UK, the Netherlands and Belguim. Furthermore, primates only make up 0.001% of animals tested on, and cats and dogs are only 0.5%. Also, laboratories are checked on at least 12 times randomly throughout the year to make sure that the high standards of animal care are being kept (Nuffield Council 39). Animal researchers

Adversaries to individuals against animal tests, such as the Draize test and LD50, focus their attention on the component of animal testing that results in the creation of safe products for human use and life-saving treatments and drugs, not the ethical and pain aspects. These individuals believe that testing on animals is vital in order to experience continual success within the medical field, “The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals” (“Should Animals”). Without animal testing, this side argues that we would not be as advanced as we are today on a medical level when it comes to both major and common health issues.

Is animal testing ethically acceptable? Is it acceptable for animals to suffer for the testing of medicine? Although there are alternatives, animal testing is by far the most productive, accurate, and beneficial form of research. Animal testing is necessary for many reasons, including to advance in medicine, to prevent harmful tests on humans, and to establish a solid research background. In this essay, the facts represented will be convincing evidence that animal testing is a necessity for advancement in the medical world.

When people hear the phrase “animal testing” they tend to have many reactions. Some think that it should not be allowed, while others think that science could not survive without it. Many advances have been made in the medical field because of animal testing, and the process of eliminating it from existence will be extremely difficult (Ericson, 2014; Daston, et al., 2015). Due to the controversy surrounding the subject people might not know all of the facts. Through our research we have found information relating to the medical benefits, ethical problems, and ways to make animal testing moral. Understanding more of the facts associated with animal testing, allows knowledgeable decisions to be made on whether or not animal testing is needed and what could be changed. When more people understand the basics of animal testing and the different arguments and questions circulating in the scientific community, changes will come faster.

Scientists have a choice to make: they can choose to use animals and torture them or they can use alternatives like artificial skin from humans or animals to see how they react. Everyday thousands of animals are being tortured for science. The experiments that are performed on these poor animals are very inhumane.

“More than 100 million animals are killed in U.S laboratories each year” (Using). This is an example of overuse and inhumane animal testing, alternatives could be pursued but animal testing is routine. Scientific discoveries could have been made without the use of animals testing. These examples describe why animal testing is unnecessary, and should not be used in our world today. Animal testing is inhumane and has alternatives, it also does not benefit medical research.

Many argue that animal testing is misleading or unsafe and some even believe there are alternatives for all animal research. However, where there are reliable alternatives, most certainly, scientists and many other professionals have used them, that's what the law demands. Advanced computer systems, mathematical models, human tissue and cell cultures can be helpful; but they cannot provide the answers that animal research can (Blakemore, 2008). Moreover, no researcher chooses to use and test on animals where there is no need. Animal research is time consuming and expensive, therefore no scientist gains pleasure from causing an animal suffering and wasting his/her time while doing so. Secondly, critics argue that using animals in the lab to

One of the most controversial topics worldwide is whether or not animals can be used for medical purposes such as drug testing, studying diseases, or making advancements in drug technology. The main issue is the fact that animals are conscious and sentient like us humans. This has led to disagreements in the scientific community regarding animal testing. Some animal organizations such as PETA, The Center for Alternatives for Animal Testing, and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments have been combatting animal testing for years. Most of the United States however, still accepts animal testing. The ethicality and effectiveness of animal testing is determined through many factors. When all these factors are considered, the necessity of animal testing is conspicuous, and the ethicality can be defended. Therefore, with all the evidence gathered in this essay, I believe that animal testing is justified for medical purposes.