Should Animal Testing Be Allowed Analysis

574 Words2 Pages

Can animal testing be stopped? Geoff Watts believed it could be stopped. Geoff Watts questioned whether it was really necessary to continue animal testing. He argued that most of the desired knowledge needed could be acquired without the need for animals. Many of the experiments that were done had little or no use to them at all. “... they did these studies solely because they had to - the data themselves were of no practical use (Watts, para 4, line 15-17).” Some researchers stated.
The real problem wasn’t stopping animal testing, it was replacing it. He believes that animal testing shouldn’t be stopped completely because it had a valid effect because without animal testing we wouldn’t have all of the new medications. New medicines were made with about 10% of animals, and only 32% of animal Experimentation is for fundamental research. Watts points out an alternative to animal testing. He states that a vaccine was developed using cell cultures instead of animals.
Although Watts provides some supportive facts of the positive things about animal testing, I disagree with him. Even Though it’s true we couldn’t have advanced in the medical field without the use of animal experimentation, but we are in …show more content…

We may have similar bodies, organs, or functions but that doesn’t mean that whatever medication was developed from the tests themselves will affect us in the same manner. An article published by the Chester Chronicle, proves my point by stating how many drugs had been taking down “... because of side effects and other reasons, that cause more harm than good (Chester, para 4, lines 1-2)?”
This alone made all the testing and suffering that the animals went through to waste. In conclusion I believe animal testing should be banned because it’s not necessary and there's enough evidence support my

Open Document