An Argument In Favor Of Animal Testing

To begin with, why is it done? Animal testing is done to protect humans from bad products that may hurt them, also to find ways to cure diseases that haven’t been cure yet. 95 percent of mice and rats are used for research. Mice represented the largest increase in research with their numbers going from 1.2 million to nearly 1.9 million in that period. Other animals also saw increases (Qtd animal experiment up to 73 percent, study says). Other animals that are used in research are rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, fish, and insects, and also less than one percent cats, and dog’s area also used for research. Another reason is to treat injuries and learn more about the animal bodies to find the similarity to the human body (qtd. animal research). Animal testing is inhumane when testing to protect humans. Some people say testing on animals are life changing experiments and with the help of animal experiment can discover blood transfusion, kidney dialysis, and gene therapy for example cystic fibrosis and types of cancer( Coster 7). Others think experimenting on animal is cruel and they suffer a lot. It is true

In conclusion, some may say that it is unethical or inhumane to test animals who have no say-so in what is happening to them but if we tested humans and purposely expose them to health risks in order to research a disease, which is what would have to happen if we stopped testing on animals, then that would be just as bad. Animal testing for medical treatments is reasonable because it is the most accurate way to get results, without putting humans at unnecessary health risks, and it is easier to control their environment while monitoring animals because of their shorter life spans. Animal testing has also saved millions of

Although there have been significant medical breakthroughs based in animal testing and experimentation, animal testing is a poor method of science as it is largely useless and

Although animals testing help humans in many ways it can be cruel and inhuman to the animals being tested on. Depending on which lab the end up in they could be treated poorly and starved. They could be “inflicted with burn wounds and pain to test for a healing process” (Brown, 2017). This is cruel and just wrong for many reasons. “When testing to evaluate irritation caused by

Animals have similar characteristics to humans in terms of their physical and psychological states, thus we have a moral obligation to free them from unnecessary pain. More ethical alternatives to animal testing are more cost-effective, quicker and more reliable.

Every life has a choice. Every choice has a reason. Every reason has a purpose. All answers come into place. Why? Now that is the question people ask themselves on a daily basis when trying to find human cures or treatments. Why are the experiments having this sort of effect? Why have the experiment subject’s internal organs disintegrated? Nevertheless, people assume test subjects to be volunteering humans, the homeless, or desperate aliens who are willing to do anything to cross the border or country. In reality, animals [mainly cats, dogs, and mice] are the ones that endure experimentation for the future of mankind. Even though animal testing helped discover treatments for aggressive diseases and safely determined the outcome of mankind, it still sidesteps the fact that animals are their own being, it violates the Animal Welfare Act of 1970, the discovery of humane methods shows it to be beneficial, and the test results will soon become void for the benefit of mankind.

For centuries mankind has experimented on animals for a number of different reasons. Early experimentation with animals was originally born out of curiosity but eventually became a necessity to find medicines to cure viruses and a myriad of illnesses. If not for the existence of animals, humans would be left to experiment on themselves at a high rate which would create a worldwide moral dilemma. Such a dilemma could be dictated based on the question of who should be chosen for experimentation; should it be a particular race or class of people?

Initially you might believe that animals have moral rights. Animals tested are don’t even have the mental capacity to comprehend different objects, let alone what they’re going through. They just have similar features of a human, which outside of this scenario would be completely useless. Another argument might be how testing doesn’t have guaranteed results, but hurts organisms in the process. While this is true, testing has an 83.7% success rate, while taking in consideration animals that were too weak to live past a few hours. Taking note of how only a few hundred animals are tested on a year, that 16.3% is a minimal amount. This is all for the better of humans, and even animals. After all, animal products are created off of these tests too. The death of a few animals, is better for us, and the rest of

If the only justification for these animal tests is if the only animal use in experimentation provides greater benefit to the health of humankind than the cost to the animals. Clinical trials, especially for drugs for alzheimers, asthma, polio, antibiotics, meningitis, and other critical diseases go through animal testing phases before reaching human test groups. Some of these drugs have been trialled successfully in humans, but their safety and efficacy was first established in small and observable animal populations. It begs the question that- if animals are hurt by testing, but in the long run, human lives are saved, what is morally correct?

You're living inside a bleak cage, you have absolutely no authority over your life. It is sorrowful and bitter, as each day passes, more experiments leave you agonizing. You never know when you will give in to death. Next, to you, you see a mouse with a tumor bigger than it’s body, a kitten purposely blinded, rats with skulls cut open and electrodes implanted into them. What can you do? This is the life of an animal in a lab. You are doomed to perish one day. You are an animal in a testing lab, these innocent creatures have implantations, have multiple chemicals injected into them, surgery performed on them, and left to die, this is what it means to be an animal who is tested on. Free these innocent animals from torture, give them a chance

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.

“Lots of people talk to animals…Not very many listen, though…That’s the problem”(Ben Hoffman). The controversy of animal testing is phenomenal; it always has been. I remember dissecting animals throughout my years of school in the "name of science". It was only until recently that I started questioning the government 's methods to teach us. We dissected a dog shark in my oceanography class last year. There had to been at least 80 dead sharks in about four different buckets; that was when it crossed the line. I understood a lamb eye or something, but breeding sharks in captivity just so they can be killed? Animal testing is wrong in every way to me.

are not able to give consent for this as would be required of a human. Other

Some people might argue that there is no better alternatives for testing then animals. Over the years, however, science has created many alternatives for animal use in testing. One alternative is, using donated human tissue and organs. With this method less animals will die for human research. This has also been proven to be up to 20% more accurate than an animal testing (Neavs). Another alternative would be microdosing. Microdosing would take human volunteers and give them small doses of drugs high enough to cause an effect but not high enough to affect the entire body (The Hastings Center). By using these alternatives, less animals will be used

The controversy behind animals as research subjects is mainly one of morals and the ethical treatment of said animals. Many people believe we should use them in this way, so we aren 't actually harming people in the pursuit for better things for humans. Though animal testing was a viable resource for many years, it has proven to be extremely controversial and unethical, therefor the use of animals as research subjects should be outlawed.