The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

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.

Despite controversy over animal testing, according to statistics conducted by the Foundation for Biomedical Research, roughly 95% of all lab animals are some strain of mouse or rat. () Scientific researchers rely on mice and rats for several reasons, one being convenience. Rodents are small, easily housed and maintained, and adapt well to new surroundings. They also reproduce quickly and have a short lifespan of two to three years, allowing several generations to be observed in a relatively short period of time. Another reason laboratories use rats is in order to obtain genetic purity and consistency; rodents raised for animal testing can be bred so that they are almost genetically identical to prevent any bias in experimental results (Iannaccone & Jacob, 2009). What makes rats most

Have you ever felt insecure about your appearance? Do you wear makeup to feel more beautiful? Did you know in order for you to feel beautiful an innocent life has been destroyed? Animals are not only being tested on for makeup; they are also regularly used for cruel and extreme medical experiments. Although animal testing has created many medical advancements, it simultaneously degrades and causes harm to the helpless animals.

Over one hundred million animals every year die from animal testing, in the medical and cosmetic fields alone (“Experiments on Animals: Overview”). Animal testing is as big of a problem today as it has been in the past. Most people do not agree with animal testing today but years ago it was one of the only ways of testing. It was considered, if not the only, effective and efficient ways of testing a product’s toxicity. To date, animal testing is not warranted because of the development of new technology and past discoveries. Many organizations and brands publicly oppose animal testing. The companies that stand against animal testing are broad and diverse, ranging from medical to cosmetic testing, advocating that at its core, this issue is

The world’s largest cosmetic markets have banned animal testing for cosmetics. Major companies have turned their backs completely on animal testing and no longer use ingredients that were tested on animals – and a number of animal tests have been completely replaced with superior, cheaper and more effective non-animal methods. Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories. Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that the laws only protect the least

First and foremost, the inaccuracy of animal testing has caused such tragedies in human lives. The animal testing will give the scientist ideas of what may happen, but nothing is secured or accurate. As a matter of fact, ninety-six percent of affirmative tested animal results fail with humans (“Test Drugs With Technology”). For instance, in the 1950s a sleeping pill thalidomide was tested on rats. The drug passed every exam for the thalidomide, but when it was released to the public, it caused ten thousand babies to be born with astringent deformities (“Thalidomide”). Also, a drug, Vioxx, was tested on mice and showed to have protection for the heart. Tragically, when it was released, it caused more than 27,000 cardiac deaths (“Test Drugs

Have you ever wondered how it would feel to be forced to do things against your will? Every year more than 100 million animals suffer each year. They are forced to eat, get physically hurt, and overall being traumatized. Despite animals not being exactly like humans, they still feel the same pain and emotions as us. Animals should not be used in medical testing or product testing because animal testing is cruel and inhumane with animals being forced to do things they wouldn't want to do.

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.

Products that fill the shelves of supermarkets have a more complicated background than many believe. Behind every ingredient that companies list on packaging of cosmetics and medicine, both prescription and over the counter, is a choice that corporations must make regarding the treatment of animals. Laboratories harm animals and even kill them when conducting laboratory tests for new products. Numerous tests have been created since the wide use of animals, such as artificial skin tests that have no negative consequence for them. Global governments have differing laws dealing with these harmful means of production, but many allow this to take place, while even protecting household pets. Many people do not think of the process that precedes products on store shelves. Deadly animal testing with questionable ingredients is constantly being proven to be outdated by new types of tests for both cosmetic and medical uses.

To begin, some people believe that animal testing is justifiable if done in moderation and is consistent within the law. With scientific research, there are ground rules that researchers have to follow in order to ensure a safe and inhumane practice unto the test object. In the medical field, numerous diseases, medicines, and solutions for horrible sicknesses are tested on animals in order to bring forth a new method to conquering the issue. In 1959, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique was published by Burch and Russel introduced substitutions to decrease the pain an animals experiences. “They introduced and defines the terms replacement, reduction, and refinement, which subsequently have become known as ‘alternative methods’ for minimizing the potential for animal pain and distress in biomedical research” (Russel and Burch). Replacement according to Bruch and Russel mean that there various options other than animals to conduct experiments on such as humans. Reduction is the lesser amount of animals used to gain statistics for the needed material they are researching for. Either scientists could use fewer animals, or they can have a set number of animals that they can use multiple times for different reasons. Finally, refinement is the overall hospitality that the animal receives. While being used in a test, the animals should feel the upmost comfort, and they environment should bring forth a comforting feeling overall (Burch and Russel). With these, animals can

Animal testing has always been a topic of debate in the masses, especially in the last

Do we as humans find it hard to justify animal testing? Animal testing is the experimentation carried out on animals. Animal testing is when animals are forced to undergo a variety of medical or cosmetic procedures, which causes pain, suffering, and death among animals. Animal testing conducts more medical experiments, it is a way of researching vague productivity but is a practice of animal cruelty.

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

At least 100 million animals die every year from animal testing (PETA). This is not only an extortionate amount, it is an imprudent and unnecessary practice. Animal testing, according to Cruelty Free International is, “the use of non-human animals for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs”. By understanding what animal testing is, the history behind it, the negative implications, and the scientific invalidity, changes can be made and progress can be made towards to efforts of eliminating animal testing.

For centuries, there has been a continuous debate on the issue of whether or not animal testing is a necessity to the furthering of scientific knowledge for medical advancements and biological understanding. In order to effectively dispute the issue, one must obtain information from valid sources with credible arguments. The following two articles, “Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research?” by Lauris Pycroft and Helen Marston, and, “ Juvenile Animal Testing in Drug Development - Is It Useful?” by Paul Baldrick, have been selected for analysis on whether or not they should be used to debate this topic. The article by Pycroft and Marston provides strong appeals to pathos, but fails to be a supportive source due to being very opinionated and using out of date examples. On the other hand, the article by Baldrick is a strong example of a source with unbiased claims, thorough statistical support, appeals to logos and ethos, along with having well organized ideas, but fails to make an argument for a specific side. Both articles will be analyzed on their ability to give solid facts while remaining unbiased, as well as the level of credibility they obtain by copyright dates, work cited pages, and authenticity of their publishers.