Animal Testing Argumentative Essay

When it comes to the topic of animal testing, most of us will readily agree that it is a debatable topic. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether it helps researchers to find new drugs and treatments suitable for humans. Whereas some are convinced that it does help researchers find new drugs and treatments, others maintain that some drugs tested on animals may never actually be useful or even safe for human consumption. In my own view the results of animals testing are unreliable because animals and humans are not genetically or anatomically alike to one another. Although there has been many advances in drugs and treatments for certain diseases and conditions due to animal testing, not all of them have been
successful, safe or even useful for human consumption. Drugs that had no major side effects in animals had horrible side effects on humans, such a thalidomide, which was introduced in Germany and other European countries in 1956. Due to insufficient tests on pregnant animals, thalidomide seemed harmless and since it helped pregnant women with their morning sickness it became a popular over the counter medication. Rajkumar states, “ One single pill was sufficient to produce teratogenic effects.”
But it wasn’t until 1961 that physicians began to link thalidomide with the malformation of 10,00 children and as a result it was discontinued. As a result of insufficient testing it was never approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States, however, it wasn’t until after it was discontinued that pregnant sub-human primates had begun to show malformation of their offspring. Thalidomide is not the only drug that was tested on animals and was proven safe for human consumption and has had horrible side effects on humans.
There has been many others, such as oraflex causing liver failure, flenac causing liver failure as well, butazolidin liver disease as well as bone marrow disease, cylert causing liver failure in children and even death, rezulin caused liver failure, propulsid caused over 300 deaths in children due to unnatural heart rhythms, inocor caused heart failure, and baycol caused fatal muscle wasting. All at a point where proven to be safe when they were tested on animals, but ended up being harmful to humans. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of drugs tested and were shown to be safe and effective on animals failed in human trials due to them being unsafe or ineffective . John J. Pippin, M.D., and Kristie Stoick, M.P.H., state, “According to some estimates, adverse drug reactions are responsible for 2.2 million hospitalizations and 106,000 deaths annually.” In making this comment, Pippin and Stoick argue that animal testing isn’t always reliable with the results they get from animals and how the animal reacts to a drug so when a human uses the new drug which is made to seem to be harmless humans end up with horrible side effects sometimes even leading to death. In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of animal testing can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that animal testing is the only way
to get the results needed to better our research on new drugs and treatments is contradicted by their claim that animal testing is not reliable or as safe as it seems to because of how different humans and animals are genetically and anatomically .