The Pros And Cons Of Animal Experimentation

2243 Words9 Pages
In discussions of animal rights, one controversial issue has been animal experimentation. On the one hand, advocates argue that all animals have the right to not be exploited for experimentation. On the other hand, skeptics contend that animal experimentation is necessary in order to improve human health. I strongly believe that animal experimentation is unnecessary as it can be unreliable and cruel. Animals should not be forced to suffer for research. Alternatives for animal experimentation are on the rise and eventually these experimentations will come to an end for the better. Animal experimentation is believed to be required to accommodate from the research in order to enhance in the medical field for humans. Unfortunately, the truth…show more content…
Animals should not be forced to suffer for experimentation purposes. Come to think of it, it is more of a form of torture since the animal is forced without given a choice. The main reason being because, it is believed that animals have no rights in the first place. Therefore, animals are forced to injuries, diseases, and in some cases euthanasia at the end of the experimentation. Undoubtedly the animals are treated as simple disposable objects. Yearly around the world a great amount of animals ultimately die in research labs. Some countries have setup laws that defend animals from torment, and suffering in laboratories. The US Department of Agriculture, (USDA) has installed, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to combat poor care for animals being used for experimentation. The AWA requires that animals being used in research laboratories muse be take care of properly by an authorized veterinarian in a suitable environment, and provide the basic needs for the animals such as feeding, housing, watering etc. However this same law can also determine what animals are applicable for it. Even though, the AWA is designed to protect the animals, it does not protect all of them in the process. Some animals are rejected from the protection the AWA provides based on the animals group type, animals such as mice, reptiles, birds and amphibians are the unfortunate ones. Laboratories that…show more content…
Yes such methods exist and work properly. For example, Vitro testing is cells are examined in a petri dish since human cells are available for use, it provides more accurate results than animal experimentation in all. Skeptics will object this claim since they strongly believe that animals and humans are parallel from one another, but they clearly dismiss the fact that animals and humans are so different from one another physically and biologically. We cannot forget about the vast varieties of species that exist in the animal kingdom making it only more complicated to gain from the results in all. Skeptics insist that both we and animals benefit from the experimentation in the end, yet it may mislead researchers into ignoring potential treatments and cures. Chemicals that may be hazardous to animals may be beneficial to a human, who knows how many hopeful medications are denied since they don’t work on animals and have not been tested on humans. Animals in research labs are meant to be properly taken care of under the AWA to prevent mistreatment. Still this same law has a major loophole since it does not cover all the animals such as rats, bird’s fish, reptiles and other small rodents which are the major animals used for experimentation in labs. The AWA clearly lacks proper regulation among animal testing. Often religious
Open Document