Animal Testing Is Wrong 1

Animal Testing is Wrong
Millions of animals are used every year for a wide variety of scientific and medical purposes. Some of this scientific research is to learn about and improve the welfare of animals, but most of the animal experiments are unfortunately conducted for human benefits. An estimated eight million animals are used in painful experiments, which can range from getting pricked with a needle to more severe experiments, and ten percent of these animals do not receive painkillers. Then after all of the pain that they had been put through, some of them are euthanized when scientists are no longer in need of experimenting on them. Animal rights advocates want government agencies to impose heavy restrictions on animal research, but their opposition of painful animal experimentation is matched by the growing concern that these restrictions would pose a threat to scientific progress. Although there has been scientific progress from this, animal testing is still cruel, immoral, and unnecessary because all animals, like humans, have value and are worthy of being treated with respect.
In many cases, animals are used in order to make sure that a certain product will have no negative side affects on humans. Animals have been used for several decades in experiments to make sure that it is safe for humans to use. One of the biggest controversies in all areas of scientific research today centers on the ethics of animal testing. However, this issue has raised a number of questions relating to human ethics. In the past, according to Michael Allen Fox, “several plans have been introduced for organizations that continuously rely on animals for testing purposes, but no plans have worked so far” (Fox). Animal testing should not be done in a manner as it is presently being done. Not only is it unethical and cruel, but also organizations are using animals in their laboratories for profit purposes and are abusing the rights they have to experiment on these animals. They basically are torturing animals for money.
It is impossible to know exactly how many animals are being used in research because U.S. laws do not require scientists to report how many mice, rats, or birds they use, yet it is estimated that “90% of lab animals are mice and rats” (ASPCA). The animals that scientists do have to report using in experiments include dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs, and primates. Of the animals that the USDA collects numbers on, “1,438,553 were used in research in 2002” (ASPCA). In labs, small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are usually 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. Usually, more than one animal lives in a box. Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments. Living in cages can be a big problem for intelligent animals like dogs, cats, pigs, and primates who become tremendously lonely and bored unless they have things to play with or ways to get more exercise. Most of these animals are only used in one experiment, but sometimes the same animal will be used in more than one experiment. Most are euthanized shortly after being used in an experiment.
Hundreds of thousands of animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed every year in outdated product tests for cosmetics, personal-care products, household-cleaning products, and even fruit juices. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals states on their website that, “Although more than 1,100 companies have banned all animal tests forever, some corporations still force substances into animals’ stomachs and drip chemicals into rabbits’ eyes” (PETA). These tests are not required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results. A product can still be marketed to the consumer even if it had blinded the animal.
As previously mentioned, an estimated eight million animals are used in painful experimentation. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that “Pain is an intrinsic evil, and any action that causes pain to another creature is simply not morally permissible” (Singer). Pain is an intrinsic evil whether a child, an adult, or an animal experiences it. Singer also states that “The researcher who forces rats to choose between electric shocks and starvation...does so because he knows that rats have nervous systems... like humans and feel the pain of shocks in a similar way” (Singer). If it is wrong to inflict pain on a human being, then it is just as wrong to inflict pain on an animal.
Most importantly, the lives of all creatures, great and small, have value and are worthy of being treated with respect, just like humans. This right to be treated with respect does not depend on the ability to reason. For example, an insane person has a right to be treated with respect, yet they may not be able to act rationally. According to Tannenbaum and Rowan, “Restricting respect for life to a certain species is to perform an injustice similar to racism or sexism” (Tannenbaum et al. 37). And, “like the racist who holds that respect for other races does not count as much as respect for his or her own race,” says Peter Singer, “those who support painful experimentation on animals assume that respect for other species does not count as much as respect for members of his or her own species” (Singer). Justice demands that the interests of animals be respected, which includes respect for their interest to not go through unwanted, involuntary pain. Why should they deserve to go through that pain?
Finally, animal welfare activists defend their position by countering the claim that stopping painful animal testing would put an end to scientific progress, with harmful consequences to society. Most of these animal experiments are “performed out of mere curiosity and [have] little or no scientific merit” (“Animal Experimentation”). Animals are starved, shocked, burned, and poisoned as scientists look for something that just might yield some human benefit. In one case, according to PETA, “baby mice had their legs chopped off so that experimenters could observe whether they’d learn to groom themselves with their stumps” (PETA.org). In another, polar bears were submerged in a tank of crude oil and salt water to see if they would live. And, for those experiments that do have merit, there are many non-animal alternatives. The ASPCA states that “It is only out of sheer habit or ease that scientists continue to inflict pain on animals when, in fact, alternatives exist” (DoSomething.org). The moral task of science is to discover the alternatives where they do not exist.
Those who argue for continuing painful experimentation on animals say, “society has an obligation to act in ways that will minimize harm and maximize benefits” (“Animal Experimentation”). They also claim that stopping or even curtailing painful experimentation on animals would have harmful consequences to society. Because pain needs to be minimized, scientists do work to minimize the pain when possible. Contrary to the extremist reports of animal rights activists, scientists are not crazed, cruel, curiosity seekers as they are made out to be. However, there are instances when the use of alternatives, such as painkillers, would interfere with research that promises to vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives. “Animal research has been the basis for new vaccines, new cancer therapies, artificial limbs and organs, new surgical techniques, and the development of hundreds of useful products and materials” (“Animal Experimentation”). These benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in the suffering that relatively few animals have had to endure. Society has an obligation to maximize the opportunities to produce such beneficial consequences, even at the cost of inflicting some pain on animals.
Another argument for the continuation of animal experimentation says that while the lives of animals may be deserving of some respect, the value we place on their lives does not count as much as the value we place on human lives. One of the supporting arguments for animal experimentation is that “Human beings are creatures that have capacities and sensibilities that are much more highly developed than that of animals” (PETA.org). Because humans are more highly developed, their welfare always matters more than that of animals. The argument also gives the example that “If we had to choose between saving a drowning baby and saving a drowning rat, we would surely save the baby” (PETA.org). Also, if we consider animals as our moral equals, then where do we draw the line? Technically, any living thing that is not a plant is an animal. Does this mean that oysters, viruses, and bacteria should also be the objects of our moral concern? While we may have a duty to not cause animals’ needless suffering, when we are faced with a choice between the welfare of humans and the welfare of animals, it is with humans that our moral obligation lies.
Others argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings, and that morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. According to another argument from PETA’s website, “Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes” (PETA.org). Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals. The debate over painful experimentation on animals allows us to consider the wrongfulness of inflicting pain and the duty to respect the lives of all creatures, while also considering our obligations to promote human welfare and prevent human suffering, animals aside.
Although we have an obligation to protect human welfare and prevent human suffering, all creatures—not just humans—have value and are worthy of being treated with respect. There are alternatives to animal experimentation. In fact, more human lives could be saved and more suffering could be spared by educating people about the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up their environment than by all the animal tests in the world. Animals in laboratories endure lives of deprivation, isolation, stress, trauma, and depression even before they are enrolled in any sort of protocol. Laboratories typically do not allow social interactions, provide family groups or companions, or offer grooming possibilities, nests, or surfaces softer than metal. The saddest aspect of this is that there are some animals who are born into the laboratory and may never get to experience life outside; they may never know what the sky or grass looks like, or even learn how to walk on dirt. Most of the time these animals are crammed in cages with other animals and are invaded of their space. Yet this is only the minor part of animal testing. As previously mentioned, the worst part is that the animals being tested are going through a vast amount of pain, some of them without painkillers. Before some of them are euthanized, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, some are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and some have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed. These animals are deprived of living their lives in a natural environment. Confined to barren cages, they are socially isolated and psychologically traumatized. The animals used in these experiments are treated like nothing more than disposable laboratory equipment. Like humans, these animals have a heart and a brain, and it is only fair that they be treated fairly and with respect; not to be experimented on as if they meant nothing to the world. Animal testing is unethical, cruel, and unnecessary.

Works Cited
ASPCA. “11 Facts About Animal Testing.” DoSomething.org. Web. 21 Mar 2012. <http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-animal-testing?gclid=CPXrtLHW-a4CFSQaQgodFEfsyA>
“Animal Experimentation.” Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. <http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.deltacollege.edu/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&disableHighlighting=true&action=e&windowstate=normal&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVV7&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900014&mode=view&userGroupName=sjdc_main&jsid=c74797a1a820ad84f30dde1c4e7b5c51>
Fox, Michael Allen. The Case for Animal Experimentation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. eBook.
PETA. “Animal Testing 101.” Peta.org. Web. 21 Mar 2012. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx>
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. eBook.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House, 1977. eBook.
Tannenbaum, Jerrold, and Andrew N. Rowan. "Rethinking the Morality of Animal Research." Hastings Center Report. 1. (1985): 32-43. Print.

Cited: ASPCA. “11 Facts About Animal Testing.” DoSomething.org. Web. 21 Mar 2012. &lt;http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-animal-testing?gclid=CPXrtLHW-a4CFSQaQgodFEfsyA&gt; “Animal Experimentation.” Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 21 Mar. 2012. &lt;http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.deltacollege.edu/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Reference&amp;disableHighlighting=true&amp;action=e&amp;windowstate=normal&amp;catId=GALE%7C00000000LVV7&amp;documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900014&amp;mode=view&amp;userGroupName=sjdc_main&amp;jsid=c74797a1a820ad84f30dde1c4e7b5c51&gt; Fox, Michael Allen. The Case for Animal Experimentation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. eBook. PETA. “Animal Testing 101.” Peta.org. Web. 21 Mar 2012. &lt;http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx&gt; Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. eBook. Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House, 1977. eBook. Tannenbaum, Jerrold, and Andrew N. Rowan. "Rethinking the Morality of Animal Research." Hastings Center Report. 1. (1985): 32-43. Print.