Animal Testing: Should Animals Be Used?

In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act was passed which “...regulated the sale, transportation, and handling of many animals used in research…” (Driscoll and Finley 3), but the act does not cover rats, mice, fish , and birds which make up around ninety-five percent of tested animals (“Should Animals Be Used” 3). Government approved acts are proposed and confirmed to ensure the safety of animals, but organizations soon find their way around them. Additionally, in the United States, all pharmaceuticals, preservatives, and garden chemicals must be tested on animals before humans. However, tests that are not required by law to perform on animals first include household items, cosmetics, and personal hygiene products which is emphasized by two professors,
Animal testing can result in medical breakthroughs; for example, “...dogs had their pancreases removed [which] led directly to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics” (“Should Animals Be Used” 1), but this can also lead to a harmful intake on animals. The experimentation on dogs led to a breakthrough and made the human race’s lives safer, but what it comes down to is what kind of dogs--injured or sick--they used. Conjectures made about this decision make people wonder if it was morally correct. Animal testing is controversial because innumerable people support it to ensure their safety, but are people just being selfish? Animals have rights, and occasionally some ignore them to make themselves better off. However, without experimentation, medical technology would not be as advanced and the population would decrease because of deaths. Additionally, society would be severed because of several debates and protests about abolishing animal
Specifically, in order to prevent bacteria on rabbit’s eyes, EndoSafe was created to diminish the testing. This procedure is inexpensive and the cost starts at five dollars, as explained by a seasoned writer at The New York Times (Feder 3). Also, several small companies such as Entelos in Foster City, California, have supplied computer simulation programs to test how conditions “...like asthma, obesity, or Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes will react to a new drug” (Feder 3-4). These systems provide different routes to treat conditions that are cheap and safe. Other alternatives such as in vitro testing, microdosing, microfluidic chips, and computer models have all consequented in relevant results that can actually be applied to humans (“Should Animals Be Used” 2). If applicable results can be concluded from these new techniques, making an effort to try them would be worth it. Although the current advances may be expensive, so is animal experimentation itself. Being able to discover the effects of drugs or conditions on human cells or even on a stimulation, would be a humane way to keep both human and animal lives in tact. As seen in figure one, seventy-three percent of people living in the United States believe that cosmetic testing on animals should be abolished, and it can be. Several labs have grown artificial human tissue that “...proved better [results] than tests on rabbits in predicting skin