Arguments Against Animal Testing

“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality”. (Arthur Schopenhauer, the Basis of Morality). Although animal testing has contributed too many life saving cures and treatments, it is cruel and most experiments involving animals are flawed. In my opinion testing of these products should be used on the people that will be using these products rather than animals, whom have little relation to human beings. Testing products on humans instead of animals, not only guarantees a more accurate outcome, but it saves these animals from the horrific tests they have to endure. Some would argue that the reason we test on animals before humans is because humanity is the dominant species on earth and if we can save a human life before an animal than so be it. “According to Humane Society International, animals used in
experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study
Johnson 2 the healing process; the infliction of pain is to study its effects and remedies and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck breaking, decapitation, or other means” “(About Animal Testing).
Imagine being force fed, burned and expected to recover while being watched as an experiment. This statement signifies only a little portion of how animal testing is cruel and inhumane. I fail to see what good or what knowledge may come from decapitating any animal for the so called “good” of humanity. Another way to look at it is when a human is born into this world they have an opportunity there is no limit to where their life could go, but as an animal its as if they have a high chance of being some scientists or big companies science experiment and well if the animal dies throughout the experiment whether it was successful or not they have plenty more to come, you won’t read on the front page of a newspaper ‘Duck Killed In an Unsuccessful Science
Experiment’. Subsequently most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects as well as the money. “A 2009 peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies failed to randomize the selection of animals and eighty six percent did not use ‘blinding’ (a technique used to reduce researcher bias). Also only fifty nine percent of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number of characteristics of the animal used” (Kilkenny). Considering the larger part of the animals used in biomedical research are slaughtered during or after experimental tests, and understanding that quite a few languish during the studies , the well being and lives of animals are frequently killed off for poor research. Johnson 3
Some state that living systems similar to humans and animals are elaborate that there is no acceptable substitute to testing on a living, whole body system. But different testing methods that are now present and plausible may replace the need for animals. “ In Vitro testing, such as studying cell cultures in a Petri Dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used” ( Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing). Studying cell breeding in a Petri Dish does provide the chance to study correlative development happening in the central nervous system, endocrine system and immune system. Animals are extremely different from humans and for this reason make inadequate test subjects.
All in all animal testing is cruel and most experiments involving animals are flawed. While expected to recover from the harsh conditions the animals were left in, most would not survive during the process.