Persuasive Animal Testing

Every day on TV There are commercials for the animals being beaten, abused, and abandoned but why is it nobody ever talks about the animals that were actually killed or injected with harmful diseases just to test if it will cure a human or save them from dieing? Scientists run over 20 million tests on animals around the world just to see if a chemical can kill a pathogen that will better the human race and not always the animal they are testing on race. Yes, the tests we run on these animals may keep humans safe but these tests/experiments need better regulation and stricter laws.

Every day tests are run on animals for the better of the human race. “Animals are used to understand basic biology, as “models” for studying human biology and disease,

By doing these tests scientists have found cures for thousands of different diseases like polio, Swine Flu, and Malaria and are able to test them before bringing them to the table and actually injecting humans with Vaccines and cures. There is one problem with those vaccines, and that is even if they pass an animal test, they are not always safe for human use. “The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release” (Top pro con arguments). Later scientists found that if they administered Thalidomide in extremely high doses, it would not result in birth defects. By doing these tests scientists have saved millions upon millions of lives and made it so people can comfortably leave their house and not

The laws in place Protect about five percent of the animals around the world from being tested and experimented on and restrict certain ways of testing. Sadly, the other ninety five percent of those animals are the animals that are most commonly tested on and were the most commonly used animals for testing even before the laws were put into place. “The AWA does not cover rats, mice, fish and birds, which comprise around 95% of the animals used in research, the AWA covered 1,134,693 animals used for testing in fiscal year 2010, which leaves around 25 million other animals that are not covered” (top pro con arguments). Luckily scientists have found new ways to do the Tests they have been running on animals in a laboratory setting or out of a petri dish, but the results they get are considered inconclusive because it's not on a living organism or human like condition. “Testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used” (Top pro con arguments). Animals are poor test subjects to relate to humans because Animals are not built the same way humans are. “The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings” (Paul Furlong).” But are animals actually treated like humans in the first place? There are also no laws in place to restrict how animals are