An Argument In Defense Of Animal Testing
“conservative estimates indicate that U.S. labs use over 25 million animals annually” (naevs.org)
The biggest argument in defense of animal testing is that although they would prefer not to use animals, their isn't any other viable options. And this claim might have been true, many years ago. In this day in age, scientist have developed far more humane research methods to replace animal testing. Human simulators, for instance are more accurate than animals. Another argument you can make is that testing an animal is far more humane than testing an actual person. The fact of the matter is, no matter if we use animals or not; we're still going to have to conduct experiments on humans anyways. Humans don't have the same anatomy as animals and will react differently to certain products and chemicals differently than a human. For example; dogs can't eat too much chocolate or they'll die. This is because cocoa contains theobromine, which is a compound that is toxic to dogs and many other pets, but not humans. If we were to not know anything about chocolate but fed it to a dog, without testing it on a human we would assume that theobromine is also toxic to us. This can also be turned the other way around, as some results …show more content…
People can argue that the Animal Welfare Act defends such animals. The Act however, doesn't defend animals in laboratories. The act covers only slight protection for certain warm-blooded animals like dogs, cats, and monkeys; while covering no protection for rats, mice, and birds. Most laboratories can still get away with shocking, burning, and starving animals. Many animals are tightly restrained through out the process. When it's over they're frequently thrown away, many times, still alive. As mentioned before, rats, mice, and birds aren't covered by the act so they're often tested without
The biggest argument in defense of animal testing is that although they would prefer not to use animals, their isn't any other viable options. And this claim might have been true, many years ago. In this day in age, scientist have developed far more humane research methods to replace animal testing. Human simulators, for instance are more accurate than animals. Another argument you can make is that testing an animal is far more humane than testing an actual person. The fact of the matter is, no matter if we use animals or not; we're still going to have to conduct experiments on humans anyways. Humans don't have the same anatomy as animals and will react differently to certain products and chemicals differently than a human. For example; dogs can't eat too much chocolate or they'll die. This is because cocoa contains theobromine, which is a compound that is toxic to dogs and many other pets, but not humans. If we were to not know anything about chocolate but fed it to a dog, without testing it on a human we would assume that theobromine is also toxic to us. This can also be turned the other way around, as some results …show more content…
People can argue that the Animal Welfare Act defends such animals. The Act however, doesn't defend animals in laboratories. The act covers only slight protection for certain warm-blooded animals like dogs, cats, and monkeys; while covering no protection for rats, mice, and birds. Most laboratories can still get away with shocking, burning, and starving animals. Many animals are tightly restrained through out the process. When it's over they're frequently thrown away, many times, still alive. As mentioned before, rats, mice, and birds aren't covered by the act so they're often tested without