Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing
Animal testing is the act of using non-human animals for scientific experimentation, usually to ensure whether a product is safe for humans or not. However, animal testing is used worldwide, and its purpose ranges from guaranteeing the safety of domestic products to aiding medical research, particularly in the areas of biology and chemistry. This has always been a very controversial issue, but it first became a concern of Great Britain when in 1822, the country passed the Martin’s Act, which outlaws farm animal cruelty. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was also founded in 1824, but since then there have been no significant improvement in prohibiting animal testing. While many support the testing of animals because it ensures the well-being of humans, others—especially animal rights advocates—strongly despise such actions as they believe humans do not deserve to ignore other animals’ rights and freedom. The major figures who supported animal testing during their lifetime include Louis Pasteur, Ivan Pavlov, Claude Bernard, and much more. In fact, there are few who have publicly rejected animal testing in history, although Charles Darwin is quite
…show more content…
well-known. The PETA society is also well-known for aggressively promoting animal rights. Now, the subject of animal testing has become even more controversial than before, and although many countries are slowly opening up to granting animal rights, it is still considered an important practice by manufacturers and scientists everywhere. Like mentioned in the introduction, there are many people in history who have supported animal testing and used it for their benefit and experimentation.
Louis Pasteur, for example, used animals to aid the invention of cholera and rabies vaccines, and Ivan Pavlov used dog saliva to describe how they cool themselves naturally. Claude Bernard, a notable figure in the field of physiology once said that animal testing is "entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man.” There is a general pattern between the people who have supported animal testing; they have used animals to further understand human diseases and defects. Generally, animal testing is widely supported by humans because without it, they can never be sure whether the products they are using regularly are actually safe to
use. Of course, there are people who disagree with the idea of animal testing. Charles Darwin, the author of On the Origin of Species is quoted of saying, “I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty.” The few main reasons for rejecting animal experimentation are the concern of animal rights and the available alternatives. In fact, there are fully efficient alternatives that can be used instead of animals, but they are seldom used because they are not well-developed in all countries, and the cost is expensive. However, is conserving money be more essential than saving hundreds and thousands of animals? The major differences of the pro- and con- sides of animal testing is that, people who are against animal testing usually base their reasons on morality. For example, humans are animals, and therefore they do not deserve to consider themselves superior among other animals and test on them. The other side of this issue considers human welfare and progress more important, and this can be seen by the many accomplishments on human diseases achieved by relying on animal experimentation. An interesting quote by Charles R. Magel, a professor at Moorhead State University is, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.” Today, it seems that animal testing is still vital to human society, although the situation is steadily changing. According to The Midwest Political Science Association, the general public views animal rights and environmental issues as similar issues and that more people are becoming aware of such controversies. It seems that for now, animal testing will be used by many, but the conditions can certainly be resolved. As mentioned before, alternatives are being developed, and when they become more cheap and efficient, they can potentially provide as a new substitute to animal testing. To elaborate on these alternatives, scientists are developing physiological chips that contain cultured, living cells that mimic the functions of the human body. Resolving this issue will not be easy, because animal testing traces back to the ancient Greeks, and it is always difficult to end something that has been passed on for generations and generations.
well-known. The PETA society is also well-known for aggressively promoting animal rights. Now, the subject of animal testing has become even more controversial than before, and although many countries are slowly opening up to granting animal rights, it is still considered an important practice by manufacturers and scientists everywhere. Like mentioned in the introduction, there are many people in history who have supported animal testing and used it for their benefit and experimentation.
Louis Pasteur, for example, used animals to aid the invention of cholera and rabies vaccines, and Ivan Pavlov used dog saliva to describe how they cool themselves naturally. Claude Bernard, a notable figure in the field of physiology once said that animal testing is "entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man.” There is a general pattern between the people who have supported animal testing; they have used animals to further understand human diseases and defects. Generally, animal testing is widely supported by humans because without it, they can never be sure whether the products they are using regularly are actually safe to
use. Of course, there are people who disagree with the idea of animal testing. Charles Darwin, the author of On the Origin of Species is quoted of saying, “I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals, and have done what I could in my writings to enforce this duty.” The few main reasons for rejecting animal experimentation are the concern of animal rights and the available alternatives. In fact, there are fully efficient alternatives that can be used instead of animals, but they are seldom used because they are not well-developed in all countries, and the cost is expensive. However, is conserving money be more essential than saving hundreds and thousands of animals? The major differences of the pro- and con- sides of animal testing is that, people who are against animal testing usually base their reasons on morality. For example, humans are animals, and therefore they do not deserve to consider themselves superior among other animals and test on them. The other side of this issue considers human welfare and progress more important, and this can be seen by the many accomplishments on human diseases achieved by relying on animal experimentation. An interesting quote by Charles R. Magel, a professor at Moorhead State University is, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.” Today, it seems that animal testing is still vital to human society, although the situation is steadily changing. According to The Midwest Political Science Association, the general public views animal rights and environmental issues as similar issues and that more people are becoming aware of such controversies. It seems that for now, animal testing will be used by many, but the conditions can certainly be resolved. As mentioned before, alternatives are being developed, and when they become more cheap and efficient, they can potentially provide as a new substitute to animal testing. To elaborate on these alternatives, scientists are developing physiological chips that contain cultured, living cells that mimic the functions of the human body. Resolving this issue will not be easy, because animal testing traces back to the ancient Greeks, and it is always difficult to end something that has been passed on for generations and generations.