The Cruelty of Animal Testing

2218 Words9 Pages
Each year, 50 to 100 million animals are killed around the world for experimentation purposes and drug research. The AWA covered only 1,134,693 animals tested in 2010, leaving out at least 25 million that are unaccounted for by the AWA (ProCon.org). “There are many examples of humans taking advantage of their ability to dominate other species—capturing them, holding them in tiny cages, even subjecting them to artificial whiplash—to see what happens” (Driscoll et al). This was actually a real incident that occurred at the University of Pennsylvania in 1983, where monkeys were exposed to hydraulic equipment that was intended to cause whiplash; this resulted in brain damage. Across America, there are animals placed in grotesque environments for experimentation; most of these situations can be avoided or solved by finding substitutes. Animal testing is more expensive than recently discovered alternatives, unpredictable because humans differ so much from animals, and cruel. Many of these practices are repeatedly justified because they are deemed more economically efficient in the “production of agricultural products.” Another arguments made by corporations is that “animals may experience less pain than humans,” but this is also false. Research has shown that “mammals all have similar nerve structures for feeling pain” (Driscoll et al). The truth is that many people are uneducated about the horror behind the testing of animals. This ignorance is the leading cause of these awful facts because there is only a small percentage of educated people that are taking action to stop this unnecessary evil. The cause for this problem is that many people are unaware that there are many products that are not required by law to be tested on an... ... middle of paper ... ...ed that the law is not abided by (NC State Law). Since the testing of cosmetics, household items and much more are not even “required by law,” (Driscoll et al) all of these companies are committing felonies by subjecting these animals to experimentation “without justifiable excuse” (NC State Law), so it should be stopped. Not only are the current laws neglected by these corporations, the laws also lack the ability to protect the major percentage of the animals used in testing. So when it comes down to the final decision philosopher Jeremy Bentham brings up this very issue in the 1700s when he says, “The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?” (ProCon.org). So by ending the harm and suffering inflicted on the animals, we can choose more cost effective alternatives and provide better benefits toward the health of our species.
Open Document