The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

1570 Words4 Pages

Using animals in scientific research has been a heated debate and highly controversial topic for decades. The biggest question associated with animal testing is if it is morally right or wrong. Some people would say testing products on any kind of animal is unmoral and wrong. But scientists on the other hand, believe animal testing is the best way to discover medical breakthroughs. Regardless of how people may feel about animals the fact remains that animals are being hurt and killed unnecessarily in research facilities all around the world. Although humans benefit from animal research, the suffering, the pain and the deaths of animals are not worth these human benefits. Therefore scientists have the moral obligation to pursue other options …show more content…

Unfortunately this is not the case. Currently there is not one single law in the United States that is designed to prevent or prohibit animals from being used for medical experimentation. In fact, the only federal law enacted to help protect these animals is the Animal Welfare Act, which only enforces laboratories to provide clean facilities for the animals to reside in (Newkirk 242). Without regulation, scientist can administer any treatment or substance to these animals they determine is fit. It is unethical to allow the person who if profiting from such experiments to determine which tests should be performed as well as deciding on the quality of life these animals have while being used for research (Greek 88). Throughout the years, there have been several people who have argued that using animals for testing is a moral issue. Animals are unable vocalize their choices or decisions; therefore humans have often considered them as inferior species. People can donate their bodies to science, but animals are unable to express their wiliness to do so. Humans instead decide which animals are being used in research labs and the quality of life these animals have while being used for researched; however, it is the human making this choice, not the animal itself. This takes away the animals’ rights as well as their quality of life. Philosophers, such as Daniel Elstein and Tom Regan, argue …show more content…

Rats, for example produce their own vitamin c where humans have to supplement vitamin c through foods. Mice are nose breathers, their protein needs are higher than humans, their pulse rates and blood clothing factors all vastly differ from humans (Newkirk 215). Small strides have been made in curing the major diseases that affect humans. People are still dying and animals are continuing to suffer! 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). Another less invasive option would be through autopsies. Autopsies rule out the moral implications because they would be performed for knowledge gain in the medical field by people

More about The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Open Document