Why animal testing is bad essay
Using animals as test subjects for making medicines and cures to treat new diseases is wrong and ethically unacceptable, it’s cruel and inhumane putting the animals lives at risk while still having a low probability of it being effective on humans.
Given that most labs in major beauty companies use animals as test subjects for creating new products trying to convince us that it’s still better than using people instead, is a very wrong path to take. As indicated by Humane Society International, creatures utilized in trials are normally exposed to coercively feeding, constrained inward breath, sustenance and water hardship, delayed times of physical restriction, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.
“The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. In addition to that, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2016 that 71,370 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,272 nonhuman primates, 5,771 rabbits, 24,566 guinea pigs, and 33,280 hamsters.
While you would think that animals would have the most reliable results due to our very similar genetic structure, it has been proven to be wrong. Animals are very different from human beings and actually make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that “it’s very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human.” Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because “we are not 70 kg rats.
