Although scientists have resources they could use to lower the pain each animal endures and even alternatives of their test subjects, millions of innocent creatures are still suffering. The fact that animals are still used when animal experimentation is avoidable and not necessary makes animal testing unethical. According to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (2013) over one hundred million animals suffer and sometimes die from experiments to test chemicals, drugs, foods, and cosmetics (para 3). Although it is good that the companies are concerned that their products do not harm consumers, the law does not require most of these tests animals endure. Furthermore, these tests do not have accurate results, so the animals may suffer but the product is still sold to the people.
Works Cited BBC. n.d. Animal ethics: Experimenting on animals. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml [Accessed: 18 Nov 2013]. Harley, H. 2013.
How ethical is animal testing compared to other methods of testing products for humane medical use? Today a lot of people are just looking for the most effective product out there to use. If animals aren’t used for testing products, consumers are more likely to buy these products. Humans are more at risk for side effects because animals don’t always get accurate results. Animals and humans are not exactly the same so the reaction to a drug in an animal’s body is going to be quite different from a reaction in a human’s body.
“For basic research, to understand a disease, dogs are an excellent mimic of the human cardiovascular system.” (Dixon 1). As one may see using animals as cruelty, it avoids the death of numerous humans. Animals such as guinea pigs can be tested on as opposed to performing a huge surgery on a human being and he/she does not make it through. The effect of some animals does not always affect people, but it can give you an idea of what dangers you may encounter. Other animals like, cats, mice, hamsters, rabbits, pigs, and sheep are also tested in labs, “animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century – for both human and animal health.
Retrieved from http://pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests ProCon.org. (2014, February 3). Retrieved from http://animal-testing.procon.org/ Society International. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.his.org/issues/chemical_product_testing/facts/time_and_cost.html Woods, G. (1999).
Everyone thinks a lot of good things can come out of animal research but that is not the case. Animal research is not beneficial, for us or the animals. With this in mind, I would definitely have to say one major con of animal testing is the loss of many animal lives. If the animals do not die in the research they are then put to sleep. “This adds to the estimated 90 million animals killed worldwide for research” (Medical Animal Experimentation).
Scientist use all types of animals, but the most common are rats, mice, birds, reptiles and amphibians (ASPCA). Animal testing can result in an injury and or death to the animal that is being tested on. Scientist should find healthy and safe alternatives to figuring out information they need, rather than using helpless animals. Animal testing has been around for a long time and it has just recently sparked controversy in the scientific community. Some scientist feel that they could find healthy alternatives, while others feel that they have the right to use animals in their experiments, and that the animals are inferior to humans; therefore, have no rights ("Controversy of Animal Testing - About Animal Testing (UK)").
The welfare of animals should be considered in experiments, although they are a substantial benefit to medical research there should still be strict enforced regulations set to stop the unnecessary pain and suffering of the animals. There are many animal rights activist groups asking that an animal’s life be seen just as valuable as the life of a human. Having “natural rights” for animals defined would mean imprisoning and holding trials for animals that break the law, realistically this is not a defensible philosophy. According to Lee and Ames natural rights for animals is a “flawed philosophy” that contradicts itself. The concept of natural rights for animals would jeopardize all medical research.
However, most people accept the elements of the above conditions for animals. Animals should not be a part of the pain and horrific conditions that humans put them through. We shouldn’t just let these innocent animals suffer and die to save human lives, when we could find other ways to treat diseases. Of course animal testing has contributed towards many life-saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states “nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals.” The polio vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global outbreak of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 406 cases in 2013.
Animal testing can harm many different species of animals for our selfish needs of being safe and no harm coming to humans. Many animals are at risk when scientists test on them for products animals do not have the necessary need for them. Health problems, testing, alternatives and student surveys, and rebuttal make testing very wrong in every point of view. An animal’s daily life in a testing room is very stressful and life risking every second. Even with the Animal Welfare Act protecting many animals “95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish.”(ProCon.org.