Animal Experimentation

Animals of all kinds have been suffering for far too long from animal testing. Testing animals is not a beneficial or reliable way of testing a product or for medical research. There are many different and more accurate ways to tests products or do research than on animals. Animal testing is not safe for animals which is why testing on animals is morally wrong. This essay will examine the scope of the need to illegalize all testing on any animal.

This very subject is something that I have always thought of, but never thought I was right. What good is it going to do us to use animals to test medicines on if it's not even helping? Another statement Ray Creek said was that "The General Accounting Office several years ago concluded that animal tests do not accurately predict how dangerous a drug will be in humans. In other words, drug tests on animals do not protect humans from harmful medications.

Certain animal rights groups have acted out with violence against people who believe that animal experimentation is not a bad thing. There are some laws that have been passed to protect animals like the Act of 1986 which makes sure animals suffer as little as possible; and the Cruelty to Animals Act which was passed in 1876 (Franklin). People are making an effort to save as many animals as possible when trying to experiment. Animal experimentation may be very harmful to animals and inhumane but it is the only thing right now that is helping to discover new medical advances. Animal experimentation has been used to save many people’s lives and other animal lives.

Vivisection, or the use of animals in biomedical research, dissection, testing and education, deprives animals of their natural rights and is a great injustice. I believe that this is completely unacceptable, and we should find more humane as well as more effective alternatives immediately. Despite the wide use of animal testing, the research obtained from it is not even of much help to us. The chemicals and medicines we test on animals reacts differently on every species. In fact, it has been proven that no two species even metabolize any given drug in the same way.

With the reliability of animal studies in question, scientist should be seeking out non-animal alternatives. Scientist who regularly use animals during their research would argue that innovations in the medical field would come to a stop. I agree that changes would have to be made and this change would not happen overnight but I am for certain that alternatives are possible and are the right choice. Some have argued that eliminating animal studies would also eliminate a controlled environment but they are not taking into consideration the possibilities of experimenting with human tissue in vitro, or in test tubes, and how this would be a solution to this problem. Human cells can easily be obtained or collected from surgery, biopsies or autopsies and because of technology many of these cells or tissues can be preserved indefinitely (Greek 101-102).

Scientists use animals instead of humans because experimenting against humans is viewed as impractical and unethical. The debate of animals being used in commercial products and educational exercises is an emotionally stimulated issue going on in modern society. Many animal rights groups, including PETA, have found that the way that animals are being treated during testing is morally wrong. Emotion may be the determining factor in deciding whether a person believes that animal testing is ethical or unethical. The use of animal testing has been beneficial, discovering many different medications that have saved human lives.

In recent years, news reports and articles feature stories in which animals are harmed in animal testing and even killed once a research study is terminated. Many articles have argued back and forth about animal testing and trying to come up with an answer whether animal testing is ethical. The controversy over animal testing is best understood as a disagreement over whether animal testing creates more harm than good for animals in laboratories across the nation. One view of this controversy is that testing on animals does not benefit humans or the animals being probed in laboratories. Another view of this animal testing controversy is that testing on animals is extremely beneficial to humans as it helps us advance in the medical field faster

Scientists experiment on animals and by doing this testing, scientists are supposed to develop safe medical treatments or medicines for humanity; however, most of the products created are never actually tried on humans. These animals are suffering through horrible and inhumane experiments when there are better methods to ensure the safety of humans as well as animals. Alternative testing methods do exist. These alternative methods can replace the need for animals but, still, animals are being abused for testing. Animal testing needs to be eliminated for a number of reasons.

Animal research should be ended, it is wrong to assume that animals do not feel pain or anguish as they endure needles, pain, diseases, and death. A common misconception with regard to animal testing is that animals are genetically similar to humans. Many animals are different than humans, so animal testing does not always benefit the lives of humans. Dr. Richard Klausner, a former National Cancer Institute director said, “we have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans” (qtd in Thompson par. 5).

Because of animal experimentation, scientists are able to advance in medicine and find cures and treatments, but all this must pay a prize. Animals in these experiments suffer and even die for the cause. Many argue that it is inhumane and cruel. Others would argue that animal experimentation is beneficial and necessary. The viewpoints between Jane Goodall and Dario Ringach are different when it comes to animal testing, but they’re after the same goal: caring for the animals and wanting to look for cures and treatments.