Animal Testing

Everyone at some point has come across a television commercial, an online article, or a video about animal testing. There might be a picture of a rabbit with its fur all mangled. Or maybe it’s a picture of a white lab rat in a cage. Whatever the picture, it’s not a pleasant one. Every year, over one hundred million animals are tested on worldwide. This is a troubling statistic that needs to be addressed. Companies and private agencies continue to use animal testing as a main way to test their new products and drugs despite the overwhelming alternatives.

This topic has been put off long enough, and it is still a very big issue that needs to be addressed. All animal testing needs to be made illegal at the federal level, and all animal testing facilities be closed immediately because it is morally wrong, the tests are ineffective, there are too many negative results, it is not worth the costs, and there are better alternatives.

Animal testing has been around longer than one may think. The first known animal tests were run by the renounced scientist and thinker Aristotle in 384 BC (Hajar). He tried to research how the different nerves and tissues worked in animals and apply it to humans. Throughout the years, many different people have tested on animals to satisfy their curiosity and gain scientific knowledge. In more recent history, animal testing became law in 1938 after a pharmaceutical company sold a drug containing diethylene glycol-which is poisonous to humans (Murnagham). This drug killed over a hundred people and there was public outcry for better safety testing.

The Food and Drug Administration passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which made companies test their products on animals for safety concerns before putting them on the market. Since then there have been regulations that have been in place to protect the people from such drugs. Safety is always a priority, but this law is over 75 years old. There are new technological advances that can better represent what a drug will do than testing on an animal will. This is why the situation needs to be addressed: there is sufficient alternatives to testing on animals, and these animals don’t need to bare anymore pain.

First off, animal testing should be illegal based on the simple fact that it is morally wrong. In fact, in a recent survey over 50% of people aged 18-34 said they believe animal testing is morally wrong (Erbe). Young people are starting to see animal testing as what it is-harming innocent animals. Take this example: an ordinary person puts chemicals on their dog’s skin to see what happens. There is no debate that this is wrong. It would be animal abuse, not a question. Yet scientists can do the exact same thing and get away with it. Why? Does saying that “it is in the name of science”, or “its helping humans” really give them a free pass to test on animals? Think about animal testing at its most basic level. Someone is testing a new chemical, product, or drug on a living animal. They test them on animals because they don’t know what is going to happen. Often times the animals involved in the tests end up dead.

These animals aren’t all just white lab mice, animals used in testing can be dogs, cats, bunnies, rats, mice, fish, birds, and even monkeys—all of which can feel pain. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is perhaps one of the most well-known organizations that are against animal testing. Their stances on animal testing are “subtly and slowly, bus surely and assuredly, changing the American consciousness” arguingthat animal testing is morally wrong (PETA: Outrageous, perhaps, but also ethical). Testing on these animals isn’t just cruel, it is morally wrong as well. The well- known leader Mahatma Gandhi states”the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

These animals endure excruciating pain and can often end up dead. One example of an animal experiencing terrible pain are Beagles—yes, the dogs.Beagles are the dog bread most often used in animal testing. Dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend” but these dogs can’t say the same thing. In one study, dogs were used to study heart attacks and heart disorders. For the study, dogs were forced to run on a treadmill until their heart gave out. The dogs were killed, and then their hearts were taken out to study the damage.

In another just as gruesome experiment, Beagle puppies were bread to have a “degenerative eye disease that culminates in blindness”. When the puppies reached three weeks old, the beagles “had their eyes cut out and were killed”. One final example—this one may be the worst of all. Beagles are kept in 6ft by 6ft pens, their home for almost a year. They are fed every morning and night, but in their food there is something extra. It could be “an argi-chemical, a drug or a food additive” that is mixed with the food.

The Beagles are monitored for any adverse reactions to what they are ingesting. Every week they are weighed and have urine and feces analyzed. Every month they take a blood sample. Once the trial is over, so are the Beagles lives. The dogs “will be killed with barbiturates” (Menache). And then soon enough, that 6ft by 6ft pen will be the home to another dog and the cycle will start over again.

Secondly, animal tests are not effective. Animal testing experts Pycroft and Marstoncorrectly describe that “humans differ from other animals anatomically, genetically and metabolically, meaning data derived from animals cannot be extrapolated to humans with sufficient accuracy.” This statement could not be more true.

It is impossible for any test that is run on an animal to be one hundred percent certain that it will work for humans as well.Moreover, “upwards of 100,000 [people] in the U.S” are killed from adverse drug reactions year, and many of these drugs have been put through animal testing (Archibald and Coleman). This is a startling fact which should be taken seriously. Over one hundred thousand people die from drugs that have passed animal tests. This is inexcusable and these deaths all could have been prevented with more in-depth research and testing the drug in alternative ways.

Archibald and Coleman continue to say that “92 percent of new drugs fail clinical trials, even though they have successfully passed animal tests.” It cannot be more clear that animal testing is a poor way to test out new products and drugs. With only 8% of animal tests for drugs going on to become actual drugs, the other 92% is just a waste. It doesn’t get anything accomplished except harming animals because humans can’t get it right. Other experts conclude the same thing: these animal tests are not effective. “In many cases [animal testing] doesn’t work” (Mercury). He goes on to say that “We can cure strokes in rodents, but not in humans” and that “thirty different AIDS vaccines have been found to work in monkeys and apes, but not humans”. This is outrageous that we can find out ways to cure animals, yet we cannot get these drugs and vaccines to work for humans.

All this evidence points to the simple conclusion that animal tests are not effective. There is no reason to keep harming these animals in the name of research when the only thing they are finding out is how not to make a good drug. There is no valid reason to keep testing animals when less than 10% of the drugs that pass even work on humans. Having over 90% of drugs fail after animal tests is ridiculous, in any other industry if something fails 9 times out of 10 they would find an alternative to what they are doing, yet companies and government continue to test on animals.

Another negative about animal testing is there are too many harmful results caused by animal testing. One of the most infamous animal experiments is the “thalidomide disaster whereby tens of thousands of children were born with severe deformities not predicted in animal tests” (Pycroft and Marston). This happened in the 1960’s because of trusting animal testing and not having sufficient evidence. Thalidomide was marketed as a tranquilizerpill but it was prevalent among pregnant women because there was a claim that it could alleviate morning sickness.

Many pregnant women took this pill without a second thought. Side effects of this pill caused many babies to be born with no arms or legs, or severe shortening of limbs. This is all the result of inaccurate animal tests which were thought to be safe. A more recent example of a drug that has passed animal testing and failed is the TGN 1412 drug in 2006. This drug was supposed to strengthen the immune system, and it drug had been tested on monkeys and there had not been any negative effects. When it was tested on humans it was a completely different story. Within minutes of taking this new drug “the volunteers were racked by chills, pain and nausea” (Rosenthal).

These volunteers were all rushed to the hospital and “all six human subjects almost died” (Rosenthal). This happened less than 10 years ago. As mentioned earlier over 100,000 people die every year in the United States from adverse drug reactions that have passed animal tests. These cases of animal tests that turn out wrong are too prevalent and the inaccuracies in the tests cause damage to human lives. These animal tests are doing the opposite of what they are supposed to do. They are harming humans, not helping them.

Along those same lines, animal testing isn’t worth the costs. There are many costs associated with animal testing, including the animals themselves, holding the animals, providing them food, acquiring the new drugs to test on them, and more. It is estimated that the United States spends around sixteen billion dollars of taxpayer’s money on animal tests every year.

Furthermore, much of this money is mismanaged and wasted by the National Institutes of Health. Recall earlier that less than 10% of animal tests go on to pass human trials and become drugs. Based off this and the sixteen billion dollars, this means that over fourteen billion dollars is wasted on animal tests that end up not working for humans. Think about what 14 billion dollars annually could do instead of being squandered on animal tests. This tax-payer money needs to fund something more worthwhile than testing on animals.

Animal testing costs don’t stop at just monetary concerns; it also includes the cost of the animals lives. We live in a society where it is acceptable to kill animals in the name of science. Some animals like “rabbits, guinea pigs, mice and rats” are killed regularly in “painful cosmetic tests” (Washington: Federal Bill).Painful cosmetics tests can be anything from trying a new lotion on the skin of an animal to testing new chemicals that can burn the skin and permanently damage the animals. This comes up even though the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t require animal tests to prove the safety of products.

These cosmetic companies don’t need to test on animals for any reason yet they continue to kill these animals. Animal tests extend past just the cosmetics industry too. There are new fertilizers and pesticides that require animals to see if it is safe. It is estimated that “testing for a new pesticide can involve the use of approximately 10,000 dogs, rodents, rabbits, fish, birds and other animals” (Zeller). This is flat out unacceptable. Using this many animals to test out one new pesticide is absurd. Some of these animals must die during the tests if there are adverse reactions to the pesticide. Yet this is legal and acceptable because it is used to help farther research and create new products.

Next, animal testing is absurd because there are multiple alternatives that are animal-free. With all the advances in technology it is becoming more and more practical to move to tests without animals.Knowledgeable about alternatives to animal testing, Zeller agrees with this stating that “science is now at the place where you can do a pretty good hazard assessment in a completely non-animal way” (Zeller). Archibald and Coleman agree that there are “new tests based on human biology” that “can predict many adverse reactions that animal tests fail to do”.

Some of these new tests use human tissue that is grown from a human cell. This is actually a very simple process to do. Cells are collected from humans and grown into tissue that can be used to test new drugs. This way is more cost efficient, and doesn’t require any animals. These tests are far more effective because one can see how exactly it would interact with a human’s body. These tests should be more widely used. There are also computer tests that can accurately show what would happen given the drug and the person’s body. A scientist would enter a person’s information and then the computer would simulate what would happen.

These tests are helpful for the average person, but for someone with diseases or different immune systems these tests don’t always extrapolate to everyone. These tests need to be considered more as well. Some examples of companies that are trying to head away from animal testing are Procter & Gamble and Clorox, who are “tracking testing methods as a way to promote the development of faster, cheaper and more reliable tests that don’t depend on animals” (Zeller). This is what every company should strive to do. There are many other companies that try to lean towards animal- free tests as well. These companies are big enough to make an impact on the number of animals tested each year by moving to better alternatives.

Moving away from animal testing could soon be law as well. A bill was introduced into Congress in 2014 that would “Make it unlawful for anyone to conduct or commission cosmetic animal testing in the U.S.” (Washington: Federal Bill). This would be a huge step for animal rights and animal testing. The United States are world leaders, so if the United States made a law making it illegal to test on animals it could impact other countries to do the same. Also, the United Kingdom made animal testing illegal for cosmetics products in 2012 which was a huge victory for animal rights. Granted animal testing is a worldwide problem, but if it is illegal in the UK and if the United States makes it illegal as well, it could make a significant impact.

Skeptics of this plan might argue that animal testing is needed because they would rather test on animals than humans. Some claim they would waste an animal life before they want to harm a human life. This is understandable but it is an inaccurate argument because there are many other safe, animal-free alternatives. Plus, all tests and clinical trials have to be approved for testing on humans beforehand so this is an invalid point.

Another point some try to argue is that animal testing has brought breakthroughs in the medical industry. One might quote a stat about cancer rates decreasing because cancer vaccines are found in animals. This could be partially true, but also the overall advances in technology and science makes the cancer rates decrease as well. It can’t be solely the use of animal testing that has helped in medical breakthroughs. A final argument someone might make is that animal testing is a necessary evil that is needed to advance our research. While research is important, there are many other alternatives that are not evil and do not harm humans.

Based off of all this information about animal testing-it being morally wrong, ineffective, there being too many negative results, not worth the costs, and having better alternatives—it should be federal law to make it illegal to test on animals. To make this happen, we need to spread awareness of what is happening to these innocent animals. Also, please visit PETA’s website to see what companies still use animal testing.Please take a step and do not buy these companies products until they stop testing on animals. If their products don’t sell and there is public outcry for change, they will more than likely change their ways because they need the profits. The next time you use a new cosmetic product, try out a new drug, or buy new fertilizer, think about all the animals that have been harmed in the process for you to get it, and ask yourself if it is really worth it.

When it comes down to using animals from any given biological phyla for subject testing, the fundamental standards of ethics and morals are being raised. This is mainly because they are considered as part of the animal kingdom, just like human beings classified as homo sapiens. Therefore, this controversial subject triggers major debates around the world, initiating several animal cruelty riots, and several non-profit organizations to take actions against such, what many would consider as, unethical practices. It will be almost improbable to please all parties involved in making such decision, especially scientists and the government.

However, when looking at the subject matter from a moral perspective, it is rather reasonable not to opt for alternatives that make animals to be the subject of these practices. Therefore, animals shall not be used for research and scientific testing since the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. First of all, when we look at the subject from a moral perspective, it is inhumane to use any for scientific tests. Several of these animals that undergo these procedures are kept in severe standards. Many of them get injured while being alive and are not taken care of until they die. Moreover, they are all kept in deprive.

This means that they are not given any food or water for the remaining of their lives. In the contrary, some of them are being force-fed, and this leads them to suffer beyond belief for the remaining of their lifep. At the end, they are being killed using cold-hearted methods, such as carbon dioxide asphyxiation, decapitation, and neck breaking. (Thomas, 2008) Besides, even if animals get tested for scientific researches and finding cures as well as drugs, these outcomes are not always safe. Many medication and drugs that have been released lately got banned because of the health problems they caused to their consumers. One example would be Thalidomide, which is a sleeping pill commercially released in the 1950s. Numerous newborn babies had severe deformities because of that product even though its test on animals was successful and without side effects (“Thalidomide”).

Besides, many drugs and medications have not been approved for release due to their unsuccessful lab test. That seems good because they are protecting consumers by preventing these harmful products; however, that useless process shows the selfishness of humans because they are protecting themselves at the expense an innocent animal’s life. Moreover, Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), says that “it’s very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human.” Many experiments that were done on animals give misleading results; also, the effects that these tests exhibit on animals are not usually the same as those that are shown in humans. This is mainly because lots of biological mechanisms in the human body are completely different from those of the animal bodies.

Consequently, these tests give unreliable and inaccurate outcomes, which could be hazardous for human’s health. In addition, animals that are chosen for testing are usually under stress and fear because they are in a different environment than they are used to, particularly when they attach special materials and devices to their bodies. This definitely contributes to the unreliability of these tests. Last but not least, proponents of animal testing argued that these animals shall be used for these testing in order to come up with new drugs since there are no other alternatives, which is wrong.

Nowadays, the scientific advancement now can simply develop and grow human’s cells in Petri dishes, which can be used to conduct these tests and give more reliable results. Furthermore, there are many humans volunteers that are ready to undergo these tests under some conditions for the sake of scientific development; also, there are now artificial human skins that could be used alternatively in many cosmetic tests (“Animal Testing Alternatives”). In conclusion, animal testing should be banned because it is a deliberate violation of animals’ rights. It is immoral to see animals suffering while we have many others means of testing medicines and drugs. It is inhumane to randomly torturing and executing animals under the pretext of making human life better. Animals are part of our lives and they play many important roles human life; that’s why, we had better take care of them, respect them, and treat them with dignity.

It is effortless to say that animal testing is unnecessary and unethical when you live a happy and healthy life. However, what about those people who suffer from deadly diseases? What about those people who are dreaming that their kids one day will go to school as an average child or at least would be able to breathe without any machines? Unfortunately, millions of illnesses are killing thousands of people every day around the world. However, let’s think for a minute how many of those diseases are not dangerous for us anymore because of animal testing. Hundred of years ago, people were dying even from the regular cold or small finger cut, and nowadays it is a simple thing that could be treated by antibiotics. My great grandmother had fourteen kids, and only three of them were alive by the age of eighteen. We don’t even know which sickness killed the rest eleven kids because the medicine was horrible. I don’t want myself or anybody else to go thru the same thing. Animal testing helped to figure out how to treat thousands of illnesses, and my opinion is there is no question of morality. Unfortunately, it is the only way to save millions of human lives. I believe that it is unethical to think that the lives of even innocent animals are more important than the lives of people.

Nowadays, we all have a lot of unwritten rules that are keeping ourselves healthy such as washing our hands after each bathroom use or before food, keeping our house clean, keep insects out of the house, or even cooked the raw meat on specific temperature for a particular amount of time. We are never asking yourself how humans came to those rules because it is part of our lives. However, the long time ago people didn’t see the reason to wash bodies until they figured that some bacterias could cause the illnesses such as dysentery, or they never thought that the domestic pests like mice could be plague carriers. All these discoveries were made thanks to a lot of scientists, who figured out that the human and animal’s body works in the same way. In the book ‘Science, Medicine, and Animals’ indicated, ‘Animal research has even contributed to better nutrition and sanitation since it has helped to identify the agents that contribute to good or bad health (Committee on the Use of Animals in Research, 5).’ However, the new lifestyle and vaccines are not the only benefits that people gained from animal testing. Fifty years ago, most of the people never heard about organ transportation. It was something impossible. However, by studying the animal’s bodies and nervous system, it became possible. According to Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Data Reports only in the USA, 36,528 organs were transplanted in the year of 2018. Unfortunately, we would be not able to do such complicated surgery without studying on the animals.

Also, the veterinary wouldn’t exist as science without animal research. When our lovely puppy is not feeling good, we go straight to the vet clinic and want them to do everything as possible to make him healthy. At that moment, we don’t think about how many animals had to die to make the surgery for our puppy to happen. National Research Council stated, ‘Research is also undertaken to reduce the suffering and increase the overall well-being of animals, particularly companion animals (Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 36).’

However, there are a lot of people who still think that animal testing is unnecessary. A lot of them stating that animals have emotions and they can feel pain. I would like to agree with all of their minds, and I am pretty sure that it is true. Otherwise, we are still in need of animal testing to give hope for a lot of people. Maybe it will sound brutal, but I would rather sacrifice my lovely beagle Marley to save the life of that little girl with leukemia, who lives across the street.

It is not fair to use animals for laboratory testing of medical products. However, it is not fair to die from the treatment, which was not tested on the animals on toxicity, as well. We should be thankful to all innocent animals that gave us a chance to continue our lives because until the new ways are developed, only animal testing can provide scientists with better results. Also, I would like to say that we are probably living now in the wrong world when the lives of animals are more important than human’s, and here is a real ethical question.

When shopping at a store, no one ever thinks when he or she buys makeup, cleaning products, deodorant or lotion, that it has potentially hurt an innocent animal. In fact, millions of animals die every year due to a chemical drug. Those animals harmed never got a chance to live a normal, animal life; instead, they were put into cages and locked up for years at a time. While animal testing can be used to ensure the safety of certain drugs for humans, potentially killing or harming the animal being tested deems this practice wrong because it is immoral to kill or injure an innocent animal.

An animal being subjected to testing is not fair; that animal did nothing wrong to deserve to be treated as an experiment. Like humans, animals are creatures living and breathing on this world too. How is it acceptable that creatures almost equal to us humans are treated like scum? Stated in the article “Controversy of Animal Testing” by Ian Murnaghan, “One key argument against animal testing involves the inability of animals to consent to the tests. Humans… can make an informed decision to consent while animals have tests forced upon them, with no choice. As Murnaghan said, animals do not have the choice to decide whether they’ll be tested on or not, for they are obviously unable to speak. However, given the opportunity for an animal to have a voice, the likelihood that they’d reject the proposal of a test is highly likely. During an animal test, it may involve pain, suffering and discomfort. Although researchers try their best to minimize the pain, they aren’t able to completely prevent any from happening. For the reason that an innocent animal is suffering against their free will, animal testing should be eliminated for the testing of drugs and other substances.

All beings respond differently to various kinds of drugs and chemicals applied on them for testing. Since they react in so many different ways, it is very hard to conclude any results from the data they receive. As Murnaghan says in the article “Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons,” “the reaction of a drug in an animal’s body is quite different from the reaction in a human. The main criticism here is that some believe animal testing is unreliable. ” Like Murnaghan stated, it is almost pointless to even test animals on certain drugs and chemicals because they all have different responses to everything.

For instance, morphine, which is a commonly used drug for pain relief, calms humans, whereas for cats, it excites them. Varied reactions from a drug emphasizes that humans and animals are different creatures, therefore, why test on animals expecting results related to how humans will react? That simply does not make sense. While researchers may search for drug and chemical questions through the testing of animals, the results are figured to be invalid due to the fact that our bodies are composed differently, thus deeming animal testing as unnecessary and wrong.

Not only are animals harmed and potentially killed while being tested on, but their living conditions are inhumane and unfair. Arrays of cages are what researchers keep animals in. Small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are typically kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox but more than one animal lives in a box. Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Should these animals be kept in these circumstances their entire lives?

Heartbreakingly, most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments. What kind of life is that? On one hand, strict laws insure that the cages are warm, clean, and big enough. However, they are still kept in cages; a cage can never be as interesting, stimulating, or open as a natural habitat. On the PETA website, a startling image is locked into the reader’s mind, “Imagine living inside a locked closet without any control over any aspect of your life. You can’t choose when and what you eat, how you will spend your time, whether or not you will have a partner and children, or who that partner will be.

You can’t even decide when the lights go on and off… This is life for an animal in a laboratory. It is deprivation, isolation, and misery. ” In no way, shape, or form is it fair for an animal to be kept in a cage their entire life. Humans aren’t treated and put into cages for their life p, why should animals? Back to a point made in a previous paragraph, animals are living, breathing creatures on this earth too; they deserve reasonable living conditions while being put into these terrible situations.

Although many people disagree in the act of animal testing, others are set in the fact that it’s beneficial to our society and movement in improving modern science. By testing on animals, it can find drugs and treatments to advance health and medicine for humans. In the article “Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons,” Murnaghan writes, “They see humans are superior to animal life and this belief thus justifies the use of animals in testing. While animal suffering should be minimized, they also cite that it is preferable for an animal to suffer as opposed to a human. Researchers view animals as test subjects and conclude that humans are higher in the circle of life; therefore choosing animals for testing is the best choice for society. Those doing the experiments are not motivated by cruelty towards the animal but by a powerful desire to push the boundaries of medical research and develop therapies for diseases. The fact that hurting animals is benefiting humans is the sole reason researchers and people deem the practice as right. Another reason this practice is believed right is animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are open to regularly.

Drugs can carry substantial dangers with their use but animal testing lets researchers measure the safety of drugs prior to trials on humans. Thus, human lives are saved due to them not being harmed from the tests and the drugs tested. The price paid was to the harm of the animals, but with the gain of quality of life to humans, the world moves on. Even though there are some aspects of animal testing that are right and that benefit humans, a creature on this earth is still being harmed. If animals are alive and breathing just like humans, then they should be treated like them too.

Animals are subjected to spend their whole lives in a lab taking the abuse of medical procedures and operations. It is wrong that animals are the ones who take this abuse, especially, like stated earlier, when they are given no alternative choice or route. If a human would have a choice in this situation, an animal should too because any life has value, and animal testing shames that. Being confined to a miserable life with numerous tests that are commonly painful is not a lifestyle that any living thing should be forced to pursue. An animal has to waste its life, well-being, and health for human benefit.

These conditions are not something that any human would choose to undergo, and animals would not either, which is why animal experimentation is wrong. However, without animal testing, humans would be exposed to things that could cause harmful damage or disease. Still, there are other ways that these products and medicines can be tested other than using innocent animals. In an article in the NY times, companies state that they are taking actions in finding new ways to test, “small companies, like Entelos, supply computer simulation programs for virtual testing.

Such software incorporates hundreds of variables to simulate how humans who suffer from conditions like asthma, obesity or Type 1 or 2 diabetes will react to a new drug. ” By using new forms of testing, animals are used less in the lab for experiments and more in their own environment, living normal, animal lives. Those companies finding new ways to test their products should be commended. Testing products before they are released is the safe action to do, therefore, other ways to test those products is very important in the act in saving animals from being harmed from testing.

Animal testing has been taking place for hundreds of years and it’s no less immoral today than it was then. It leads to lasting damage to animals, and in many cases, death. Animal testing is wrong because they have no say in what happens to them, the bodies of animals and humans are different, therefore testing on an animal to find results for a human is unnecessary, their living conditions are horrid, and lastly, there are now other ways to perform tests for products using technology.

Animal testing is unfair, immoral, and selfish for anybody to do, no matter what the purpose may be. It may be said to save lives; however, it kills more than it saves.

Works Cited

1. “Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories. ” Peta. org. N. p. , n. d. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. .
2. Feder, Barnaby J. “Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products. ” The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Sept. 2007.
3. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. . Murnaghan, Ian. “Controversy of Animal Testing. ” Controversy of Animal Testing. N. p. 14
4. Dec. 2010. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. . Murnaghan, Ian. “Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. “
5. Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. N. p. , 1 July 2011.
6. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. . Suzy Woodell October 15, 2012

Argumentative Topics The Ethical Research of Animal Testing Name Animal testing has been a hot topic of discussion in society for many years. The debate is whether or not animal testing should be allowed. Some people believe that animal testing is wrong and that it causes undue harm to animals. Throughout the last 150 years, the practice of using animals for research has been under intense scrutiny between animal activists and researchers.

Scientists insist that the experimental research they do is essential for producing effective drugs, and the animal rights activists believe that testing animals for advancements in medicine is not necessary. I believe that research using animals should continue as long as there is a reason for it to continue. Thanks to animal based research, to date millions of human lives have been saved. Animal testing is the only way to find out if vaccinations work for different diseases. We cannot just ask people off the streets to volunteer, as that would be morally and ethically wrong.

At this time, scientific researchers have no alternatives for testing new drugs, as scientific computer modules can only do so much for testing. Also, the government has strong laws in place to ensure the health and welfare of test animals. As long as there is disease and sickness in the world, scientists will always be looking for the next cure and treatment options, so we will always need to have animal research. As long as the animals are treated humanely, I believe that it would be inhumane to the human race to stop animal research.

Thanks to animal research, the advancements in disease control have been beneficial and should be able to continue in the future. Although animal research has saved thousands of human lives, it has remained a major controversy for several years even though scientific researchers have tried to ensure the well being of animals. Animal rights activists still deem it inhumane, even though there are strict laws forbidding the inhumane treatment toward animals. Inhumane or not, thanks to the research of animals, scientists have been able to cure many diseases throughout the world, saving millions of human lives.

Thanks to the advances of medical technology due to animal research, the research of animals should be able to continue. Stopping animal research would be inhumane to the human race. At this time, scientists have not come up with an alternative to testing drugs on animals. They do have computer simulators, but this technology can only do so much. It is not an advanced enough system to determine if the new medical breakthroughs will work. In the 1960’s, it was discovered that animal research had taken a dark turn, and that scientists were mistreating animals and causing unnecessary harm.

Congress later passed a bill called The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, which states that it is essential that the welfare of animals being test is the main priority. It is required that animals being tested are to be treated with respect and given the best treatment possible, however; realizing that they are not human. At this time, there are roughly 50 million animals in case studies in the United States, and there are protesting lobbyists that are trying to eliminate animal case studies all together. The problem today is the difference between the medical treatment of humans and the wellbeing of animals.

Nowadays, people worry about the welfare of animals until they need the benefits of the medicine that is developed because of animal research. Most people only worry about animals being tested when it is convenient for them. People like to think of themselves as better than that, and animal testing being an unkind and unfavorable act of cruelty. When medical science is needed, it is then that the benefits are welcomed and testing of animals is forgotten. Most people realize that they would rather see an animal be tested on than a child or loved one.

Being as it is, if an epidemic did come to be, humans are more likely to side with humans than animals, always putting their own interests above anyone else’s. Thanks to animal research, there has been much medical advancement, such as the discoveries of treatment for polio, emboli, and insulin for diabetes. In the 1950’s, polio ravaged the American public, with its debilitating illness, but thanks to animal research a cure was found. American scientists did extensive research on animals, giving the animals that were tested the polio virus and then curing it.

No harm came to the animals involved. Thanks to this research, today there is not a case of polio in the United States. Furthermore, thanks to the scientific study of animals, a treatment for diabetes was discovered by finding a way to get insulin into the cells of humans. These discoveries would not have happened if animal research did not exist, and millions of people would have died as a consequence of it. Researchers continue to find cures for illnesses, and further the advancement of medical technology because of animal testing.

People and animals share a similar anatomy so it is easy to see why we share similar diseases, and why treatment should be tested on animals first. By testing animals first, scientists can determine if the new drug is safe for human ingestion. If animal testing were to be banned, how would we be able to find out if new medical technology works? Would we just test on willing participates and see what happens? This would never be accepted by the public or government. No one ever said eating a piece of chicken was wrong even though everyone knows the living conditions chickens endure.

They live their whole lives in a little cage in a factory or on a farm until they are all dried up. Then they are killed and served up at McDonalds or Burger King, but there’s no conservancy there. The reason people eat meat is because of the many benefits of meat, with all the nutrients and vitamins to grow healthy and strong. We have used animals in this nature since the beginning of time to eat, keep warm, to build, and to wear. Through all these things we use animals and it is ok. We can go into the forest and shoot and kill animals for sport, but it is wrong to use them for medical purposes.

In conclusion, we should show animals the respect they deserve. They have been one of the main sources of human survival since the beginning of time. We need to ensure they are treated with admiration and value. No person should ever treat an animal with disrespect or cruelty, for they are one of the reasons people are on this earth today. Animals are not things for people just to play with and disregard when they are done with them. They are creatures that deserve to be cared for, but not at the expense of the human race. Animals should have the right to thrive, grow, and live a painless life.

This should be our tribute to animals for all they do for people. This does not mean that they should have the rights that people have. Regarding animal testing, it is clear that there are two sides of the story, but what side is the right side? This is a personal decision that needs to be seriously considered. The human benefits of animal research discoveries have saved the lives of millions of people, and these treatments would have never been possible without the testing of animals. References Holley, K. (Aug 2009). Animal research practices and doctoral student identity development in a scientific community. In Education Research Complete. Retrieved 26 Sept, 2012, from. http://web. ebscohost. com/ehost/detail. United States Department of Agriculture. Last Retrieved (Sept 21, 2012). United States Department of Agiculture, National Agriculture Library. In undefined, Retrieved Sept 26, 2012, from http: //awic. nal. usda. gov/research-animals. Burnett, C. (March 2009). Should animals continue to be used in research Education Research Complete? In Humane Education Representative, Animals Australia Inc. Retrieved Sept 26, 2012, from. http://web. ebscohost. com/ehost/details.