Animal Testing Is Cruel And Inhumane?
Animal Testing
Gandhi remarks, “The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated.” Unfortunate animals everyday are getting poked and prodded in labs for human benefits. Animals are used to test many products, and the results aren’t always reliable. So how should people trust these experiments and the results they give?
Unreliably Predict Results Animal tests do not reliably predict results that are what should be a benefit for human life. It is important to first note that, Eighty-five HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates (“Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing”). This can cause problems in the future if these failed results start …show more content…
Initially, sometimes before animals die they might get their skin ripped off, their spinal cords smashed, holes drilled into their skulls, or forced to inhale toxic fumes (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). This shows scientists are making animals suffer and could be hurting them for research in ways that could and should be prevented. Furthermore, “TSCA reform will not only spare hundreds of thousands of animals from enormous suffering, but will also encourage the continued modernization of chemical testing and the development of alternatives.” Crystal Schaeffer, the outreach director for the American Anti-Vivisection Society, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. President Barack Obama signed a new chemical safety law that includes a groundbreaking condemnation of animal testing. Examples in the law’s new arrangement includes using “vitro methods to test isolated human cells against chemicals.” Best of all, today 95% of animals used in testing are not protected by this act. An estimated number of 26 million animals per year, in the United States, are used for testing (“Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing”). If this number was reduced and there were different testing methods used rather than using animals, more life saving treatments could be obtained. The graph added provides a look at the types of animals being used for testing and which ones get tested on the …show more content…
Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions. These conditions include, breast cancer, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, and many others. Studying humans can give more surpassing results than testing on non-human primates. Procon.org informs us that, “Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed.” Microdosing is a technique for studying the behaviour of drugs in humans. They use doses so low that they are improbable to produce whole-body effects. Although, they can produce high enough effects to allow the cell’s response to be studied by
Gandhi remarks, “The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated.” Unfortunate animals everyday are getting poked and prodded in labs for human benefits. Animals are used to test many products, and the results aren’t always reliable. So how should people trust these experiments and the results they give?
Unreliably Predict Results Animal tests do not reliably predict results that are what should be a benefit for human life. It is important to first note that, Eighty-five HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates (“Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing”). This can cause problems in the future if these failed results start …show more content…
Initially, sometimes before animals die they might get their skin ripped off, their spinal cords smashed, holes drilled into their skulls, or forced to inhale toxic fumes (“Alternatives to Animal Testing”). This shows scientists are making animals suffer and could be hurting them for research in ways that could and should be prevented. Furthermore, “TSCA reform will not only spare hundreds of thousands of animals from enormous suffering, but will also encourage the continued modernization of chemical testing and the development of alternatives.” Crystal Schaeffer, the outreach director for the American Anti-Vivisection Society, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. President Barack Obama signed a new chemical safety law that includes a groundbreaking condemnation of animal testing. Examples in the law’s new arrangement includes using “vitro methods to test isolated human cells against chemicals.” Best of all, today 95% of animals used in testing are not protected by this act. An estimated number of 26 million animals per year, in the United States, are used for testing (“Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing”). If this number was reduced and there were different testing methods used rather than using animals, more life saving treatments could be obtained. The graph added provides a look at the types of animals being used for testing and which ones get tested on the …show more content…
Animal research has also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions. These conditions include, breast cancer, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, and many others. Studying humans can give more surpassing results than testing on non-human primates. Procon.org informs us that, “Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed.” Microdosing is a technique for studying the behaviour of drugs in humans. They use doses so low that they are improbable to produce whole-body effects. Although, they can produce high enough effects to allow the cell’s response to be studied by