Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

For many years, the field of science has used animals in medical experiments worldwide, because of this innocent animals are being killed everyday. They are being tested with new drugs, new treatments, and by many makeup companies. Connecticut recently celebrated the passage of the “Beagle Freedom Law”, a law that requires laboratories to work with charities and rescue groups to find homes for research cats and dogs. Animals are being tested so humans do not have to be but animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings, although animals are the closest thing to humans. Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of innocent animal subjects. Over 100 million animals suffer a year from testing. Testing animals is a lot more expensive than alternative methods and it is wasting government research dollars. Animal testing is not only a bad idea, but it is also inhuman and it should not be tolerated. The FDA should stop allowing animal testing. An animal does not give out the same results on a test than a human would.

People have been debating about who are more important, humans or animals and should animal testing be ban and become human testing?

As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.

Many people have animals around the world, whether it be dogs, cats, reptiles, birds, even horses and llamas, and they all love them very much. A lot of people will do anything to ensure the comfort and safety of their companion and friend. Many people may be shocked and horrified to find that over 100 Million animals die each year due to animal testing. This essay will go into more detail about some reasons why people might find animal testing wrong, and some reasons why a lot of people see it as a good thing. While most believe that animal testing is important for medical research, some people think it is wrong because it’s been shown that less than 8% of all animal test results actually contain profitable data and that over 100 million

Animal testing has become a controversial issue among many people in the world today. Some of these people involved in this controversial debate believe that animal testing is unethical and should be replaced by other methods. The other group of people in this debate believe that animal testing is necessary in order to research new products that cannot be tested on humans. Traditional animal testing forces animals to undergo numerous experiments for different forms of research. Medical, cosmetic, and many other types of research experiments use animals to provide the results on how the new product may affect humans. There are many people that support the use of alternative methods to animal research and then

According to the National Institutes of Health, animal testing has been around since the days of philosopher Aristotle. According to ProCon.org, there are an estimated 26 million animals used for scientific and commercial testing in the U.S. alone. Animal testing has brought many good things to the medical world, such as the treatment various disease. Also, the animal is being tested by many cosmetics companies. On the other hand, organizations like PETA- People of Ethical Treatment of Animals have fought against the medical testing of animals. There are pros and cons that come with the usage of animals in the biomedical and cosmetic testing, and each side needs should be carefully examined before deciding one way or another.

Animals are not a reliable benchmark for testing because animals and humans have a completely different biological make up. In fact, PETA said that 72% of drugs shown to be effective in humans, have a different response in humans or are harmful to the body (Animal Testing Is Bad Science Point/Counterpoint). Disregarding the fact that some animal testing trials make it to human trials about 100,000 humans lose lives each year from taking prescriptions originally tested on animals(Animal Aid). Concluding that even if tests were to be done on animals, the drugs are not always safe, proving that animal testing can take more lives than needed and is horrifically

On the opposite side of the spectrum, supporters strongly argue a multitude of reasons why animal testing has been and will continue to be the best form of experimentation for upcoming products in the market. The first and most prominent reason is that testing on animals “has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments,” including medication for cancer, severe injuries, leukemia, and more (“Should Animals Be Used”). Not only do these medical advancements bring significant progress into the scientific field, but they are also the only adequate form of testing which fully reveals all the responses that would be mirrored in human beings. The pro side, as established by ProCon.org, commonly articulates that:

Not only can scientists create human skin, but they can also do the same with organs. One experiment in advanced stages of development is microfluidic chips, or “Human-on-a-Chip” (“Alternatives to Animal Testing” 1). These chips are just 2 centimeters wide and contain tissue samples from different parts of the body that are linked by microchannels through which a blood substitute flows. This mimics pathways and organ processes in the body. This method is also an advantage because of the reduction in the costs compared to using animals for testing, which is extremely costly (2). However, there are limitations to this so called “Human-on-a-Chip.” Microfluidic chips limit the ability of data collected compared to an animal model. Scientists

Testing products on animals are ways that humans do research. It tests whether or not the ingredients will have bad reactions on skin. Consequently, this is a danger for animals that are being kept in captivity and being tortured for human advancement. The cons of this animal abuse are the animals always end up dying or are very close to it, animal testing is cruel and inhumane, and it is very expensive to keep getting animals to kill.

Today, animals are used in laboratory and tested makeups, medicines and other chemicals. In 2005, five hundred English scientists signed an appeal by the Research Defense Society supporting that animal testing plays a critical role in medical researches. Because they believe that animal testing is a worthy practice that has helped human medication progress more safely and fast. Beside some benefits from animal testing, animal testing should be stopped because it is unreliable, unmoral and there are alternatives for animal testing.

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for decades. Researchers and scientists find animal testing essential for medical procedures and substances that they hope might be used to help people fight deadly diseases, but most times these experiments are often harmful and ineffective. Over time, scientists have had to choose whether to put ethics over science, ultimately determining the fate of numerous animals. Due to new advancements in science, animal testing can be reduced by using alternative measures. For this project, we set out to discover how effective the alternatives to animal testing are. We pose five specific questions that we hoped this research would help us to answer: (1) Are the failure rates of animal testing higher than the success rates? (2) What are the advantages of using alternative testing in opposed to animal testing? (3) How successful has the use of alternative testing been? (4) Does scientists prefer non-animal alternatives over animal testing? If so, why or why not? (5) Are alternatives more economic when compared to traditional methods of animal testing? These questions deserve to be examined because alternative testing are becoming more popular, and people should know how exactly they will benefit

In one year, people in the United States consume 1 billion chickens, 150 million cattle, pigs and sheep annually. Compared to this, the total combined amount of animals used for research is only 26 million, with 95% the animals being rodents, birds and fish. This would account to nearly 340 chickens consumed per animal used in research (US Statistics, 2016). Consequently, even with this knowledge, people continue to ignore facts and statistics; calling this practice unethical or even inhumane. This is due the rise of social media and organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), whose tactics rely more on emotional appeal than facts and logic, going so far as to twist and manipulate and the information given until it suits their ideals. Because of this, the amount of myths and misleading information spread around has increased over these past years. What this community fails to mention is the benefits and misconceptions of animal testing, as well as the vital part that it plays in the field of medicine and veterinary science. All of these (based on facts and statistics) are why animal testing for research purposes should be allowed to continue.

Which life is more valuable, a human or an animal? Put yourself in an animal’s position. What if you’re pet was the animal chosen to be tested on for “human safety”? What would you say? How would you react? According to Dr. Richard Klausner, former Director of the National Cancer Institute, “We have cured cancer in mice for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.” Even chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, do not accurately predict results in humans—of the more than 80 HIV vaccines that have proven safe and efficacious in chimpanzees, all have failed to protect or prove safe in humans in nearly 200 human clinical trials, with one actually increasing a human’s chance of HIV infection. For countless years’ animals testing has become a known audacious idea to humans. More than 30 million animals have been used for all kinds or testing and experiments. Animal testing is unlawful and other techniques can be replaced instead of animal testing by stem cells, computerized database and chemicals.

Throughout the United States, animal testing has been allowed since 1922. According to Dr. Francis Collins, director of National Institutes of Health, there has been an approximate of more than 100 million animals tested on per year (Collins). Animal testing is important to scientists who create medicine because it has been proven that animals can be helpful for medical experimentations since there are many similarities between humans and animals (Collins). Within using animals as testing experiments, there are many benefits for the reason behind this; it has been proven that animal testing helps further humans’ knowledge about medicine and helps test reactions from the medicine that was created. However, behind the logical thinking of using animals as test subjects, there are also consequences for allowing this. The consequences may not impact humans directly because the animals that are being used as experiments are being taken away from their homes and removed from their families in order to suffer and soon die. National Institutes of Health states, “ ...more