The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

When it comes to the topic of animal cruelty, most of us will agree that animal testing has improved the quality of human life. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not there are alternative methods available to researchers. Whereas some are convinced that animal experiments don’t always predict human outcomes, others maintain that there are no alternatives to animal testing. My own view is that animal experimentation is necessary.

Carl Cohen, who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan, remembers when he was a counselor at a camp in North Carolina for young children in 1948. At the time nobody had an idea of what polio was or the effects it had on children or young adults. Cohen recalls

From those earliest vaccines, some healthy children had contracted polio…To test the new vaccine before its administration to humans, animal subjects were absolutely essential” (CohenRegan). The essence of Cohen’s argument is that animal experimentation isn’t misleading. Cohen acknowledges that at the time of the outbreak of polio, other methods were used and were useless in finding a vaccine. That in order to find vaccines that are going to work it is necessary to do research on animals before testing on humans. Although humans are the best way of finding out the results of whether a vaccine is going to work, researchers can’t take the risk of infecting a healthy human being. Those opposing to animal experimentation often say that the best way to see if a vaccine or treatment is going to work is testing it on a human. There are those who believe that a vaccine does not need to be tested on animals before given to humans because animal testing does not always predict the outcome. But they ignore that researchers can’t take the risk of infecting healthy human beings, when there are other

Phil Stephens, who has pioneered an in vitro test for ulcer treatments based on genetic manipulation states, “Scientist always want a better model for their experiments so as to get better, more accurate results. If a non-animal method can work better than an animal method, great. Not only does it yield better results, it’s a lot cheaper” (qtd. in Speaking of Research). In other words, scientists don’t like the fact that they have to test animals, but they have no other choice. To put it another way animals have shorter life cycles than humans, giving researchers an opportunity to their whole lifespan. This helps scientist knowing the outcomes of the treatment. In order for a scientist to be able to find treatments that are going to work, they need to know the cause of the disease and the effects it can have on the human body. Nevertheless, both followers and critics of animal experimentation will probably argue that animal testing is not necessary and