Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing
Can you imagine yourself as a small, frightened animal being poked, probed, sleep-deprived, starved, and then placed in a small cold, steel cage bleeding from having a chunk of your skin ripped out? This is what many animals go through every day of their lives for the sake of animal testing. Animal testing has been around since at least 500 B.C. when Greek scientists used animals to understand how various body organs functioned (Animal Testing Pros and Cons, 2014). Animal testing should be banned because it is cruel to animals, it is not always accurate, costly research and technological alternatives to animal testing now exist.
The phrase “animal testing” is well-known to most people, and one often sees products in the store that are advertised …show more content…
as “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals”. However, for the purpose of this paper, animal testing is defined as, procedures that are performed on live animals for purposes of research for cosmetics, diseases, cures, household cleaners, anxiety, and more (Humane Society International). Often the procedures can cause a great deal of suffering.
Researchers in animal testing often treat laboratory animals in cruel and inhumane ways.
There are many horrific forms of cruelty to animals which include: forcing chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can includes oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, and/or muscle. Also, animals are exposed to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death. Genetic manipulation, such as adding or “knocking out” of one or more genes is often performed on animals. Other types of experimentation require that researchers restrain animals in painful ways for the purpose of observation or examination. In addition to prolonged periods of physical restraint, many animals experience food and water deprivation, surgical procedures without anesthesia, and the infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries in order to study pain physiology and wound treatment (Humane International …show more content…
Society).
Animal testing has been proven to be cruel and inhumane. There has been many undercover investigation that showed actual video footages of animals, such as dogs, cats, monkeys and others that were severely beaten, cussed at while being beaten, and foul language written on their foreheads. For example, there was a horrific undercover video footage that was released showing a military training that were mutilating live goats using tree trimmers to crack and cut off the limbs, stab the animals with scalpels to cause internal injuries, and cut into their abdomens to roughly pull out their organs. The goats were moaning loudly and would kick their legs during the mutilations because they were not given adequate anesthesia. While the military were removing the goat’s legs, they were whistling, cheering each other on, and one Coastal Guard joked about writing a song about militating the animals (“Video: Goats Hacked Apart in Military Training”, 2012). This is one of many stories which are similar to this one. It is very disheartening and awful to read and watch people who are treating animals in this terrible way. We are living in an age where we know better than do harm innocent animals.
Animal testing is not always accurate. Many experiments that are performed on animals do not work on humans. This goes back to our bodily functions and outcomes. Our bodies are much different than animals. Even though humans and some animals share similar genetics, our bodies react differently to drugs, cures, and treatments. Interestingly, rats have been used to test the value of various iron supplements, however, it turns out that rats absorb iron quite differently than humans and rats do not give usable information (An Examination of Animal Experiments).
Animal testing is a costly research. For example, a two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million. Also, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends about $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research (Animal Testing Pros and Cons, 2014).
Technological scientific advances are making animal testing obsolete. There are many upcoming alternative methods instead of animal testing. According to the article, “Advancements in Research” there are many different options for researching cures for humans. One of option is called, functional MRI and PET scanners, this can peer into living, functioning tissue and organs noninvasively. Another alternative is microscopes, which can view three-dimensional images of the inner workings of a cell. These are just a couple examples of alternative methods to animal testing. Companies should start incorporating new alternative methods for human researching and testing.
Proponents of animal testing argue that it is necessary to research on animals for many reasons. One of the main arguments is that there is no alternative to animal testing and that using animals is the only way to make scientific breakthroughs that benefit humans. Proponents of animal testing argue that performing experiments on animals is necessary to prevent harm to humans. They cite examples such as the use of animals to help develop cures for devastating diseases such as polio and diabetes. However, as alternatives to animal testing increase, this argument grows weaker and weaker. In fact, in an article entitled, “Saving the animals: New ways to test products”, author Barnaby J. Feder (2007) claims that increased pressure against animal testing has forced corporations and laboratories to find alternative methods of testing efficacy and safety. Many companies now use engineered tissue, computer and software stimulation and other types of testing as alternatives to animal testing. Such methods of testing has led to a decrease in animal testing since 2005, and according to the article, “…the number of lab animals sacrificed in the United States has fallen since then by nearly 50 percent among the species tracked by the Department of Agriculture…” (Feder, 2007).
Another argument used by supporters of animal testing is that many animals are close genetically to humans and therefore offer the best testing results. However, this argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. First of all, drugs that appear to be fine on animals may not be safe and effective for humans. A well-known example of this is thalidomide. In the 1950s, pregnant women were given thalidomide, to help control nausea, which eventually caused over 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. Thalidomide was later tested on pregnant animals such as mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters with no apparent resulting birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses (Pippin & Sullivan). Clearly in this case, animal testing would not have predicted this drug’s horrific side effects on humans. Another example that animal testing was ineffective for animals is aspirin. Aspirin is harmful to some animals while it is fine for humans (Animal Testing Pros and Cons, 2014). These are only a few examples out of many that drugs were tested on animals that did not harm humans and vice versa. Even though that humans and chimpanzees are 99% genetically similar in DNA and mice are 98% genetically similar in DNA with humans, our bodily functions and reactions are different than chimpanzees, mice, and other animals. Just because we share similar biological processes with animals, this does not mean that we would have the same outcome for research and testing.
Finally, proponents of animal testing also claim that animal testing is regulated and safe.
However, this is far from the truth. In the 1960s, there was public outcry over the use of animals in scientific experiments. In response, the government created the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 as a way to regulate animal testing and protect animals. This federal law set minimum standards of care and housing for animals such as, dogs, cats, primates, rabbits, hamsters, and guinea pigs for both animal dealers and laboratories. Also, the laboratories were required to be registered. This law was extended to protection to all warm-blooded animals in the laboratory. Ironically, this law only applies to a small percentage of animals used in testing. The AWA reports that approximately 1.28 million animals per year are used in animal testing, gravely underestimating the number of animals used in experiments each year. The reason why? Certain types of animals are exempt from reporting. In fact, 95% of animals that are used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish” (Animal Welfare Institute). Thus, most animals used in research are not reported and statistics on the number of animals used each year in testing can be misleading. If these animals are not reported to the Animal Welfare Act, then they are not protected by the AWA legislation and their
treatment is virtually unregulated. So those who argue that animal testing is safe and regulated overlook the 95% of animals tested who fall into the unregulated categories mentioned above.
New developments in technology are decreasing the need for animal testing. For example, whereas scientists used to measure how long it takes a chemical to burn away the cornea of a rabbit’s eye, researchers can now drop that chemical onto cornea-like 3D tissue structure produced from human cells. There are numerous instances where technology and engineered tissues are reducing or eliminated the need for animal testing.
Another drawback is that by relying in animal testing, researchers may ignore potential cures and treatments that would be resulted from other sources.
Another reason against the use of animal testing is its cost. This can be much more expensive than using alternative methods, and it proves to be a waste of government research dollars.
In conclusion, as a society, we should take care of the weaker and innocent animals. It is our duty to help them. If one day in the future, are we going to use weaker humans, such as intellectually disabled for research and testing? A sign of a great society is when the people take care of the weaker humans and animals. Therefore, animal testing is a cruel and inhumane practice and should be outlawed. For many reasons that were stated above, animal testing has many flaws such as it is cruel to animals, it is not always accurate, costly research and technological alternatives to animal testing now exist. I strongly believe that the cruel, inhumane, and sometimes ineffective practice of animal testing should be banned.
The phrase “animal testing” is well-known to most people, and one often sees products in the store that are advertised …show more content…
as “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals”. However, for the purpose of this paper, animal testing is defined as, procedures that are performed on live animals for purposes of research for cosmetics, diseases, cures, household cleaners, anxiety, and more (Humane Society International). Often the procedures can cause a great deal of suffering.
Researchers in animal testing often treat laboratory animals in cruel and inhumane ways.
There are many horrific forms of cruelty to animals which include: forcing chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can includes oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, and/or muscle. Also, animals are exposed to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death. Genetic manipulation, such as adding or “knocking out” of one or more genes is often performed on animals. Other types of experimentation require that researchers restrain animals in painful ways for the purpose of observation or examination. In addition to prolonged periods of physical restraint, many animals experience food and water deprivation, surgical procedures without anesthesia, and the infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries in order to study pain physiology and wound treatment (Humane International …show more content…
Society).
Animal testing has been proven to be cruel and inhumane. There has been many undercover investigation that showed actual video footages of animals, such as dogs, cats, monkeys and others that were severely beaten, cussed at while being beaten, and foul language written on their foreheads. For example, there was a horrific undercover video footage that was released showing a military training that were mutilating live goats using tree trimmers to crack and cut off the limbs, stab the animals with scalpels to cause internal injuries, and cut into their abdomens to roughly pull out their organs. The goats were moaning loudly and would kick their legs during the mutilations because they were not given adequate anesthesia. While the military were removing the goat’s legs, they were whistling, cheering each other on, and one Coastal Guard joked about writing a song about militating the animals (“Video: Goats Hacked Apart in Military Training”, 2012). This is one of many stories which are similar to this one. It is very disheartening and awful to read and watch people who are treating animals in this terrible way. We are living in an age where we know better than do harm innocent animals.
Animal testing is not always accurate. Many experiments that are performed on animals do not work on humans. This goes back to our bodily functions and outcomes. Our bodies are much different than animals. Even though humans and some animals share similar genetics, our bodies react differently to drugs, cures, and treatments. Interestingly, rats have been used to test the value of various iron supplements, however, it turns out that rats absorb iron quite differently than humans and rats do not give usable information (An Examination of Animal Experiments).
Animal testing is a costly research. For example, a two-species lifetime cancer study can cost from $2 million to $4 million. Also, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) spends about $14 billion of its $31 billion annual budget on animal research (Animal Testing Pros and Cons, 2014).
Technological scientific advances are making animal testing obsolete. There are many upcoming alternative methods instead of animal testing. According to the article, “Advancements in Research” there are many different options for researching cures for humans. One of option is called, functional MRI and PET scanners, this can peer into living, functioning tissue and organs noninvasively. Another alternative is microscopes, which can view three-dimensional images of the inner workings of a cell. These are just a couple examples of alternative methods to animal testing. Companies should start incorporating new alternative methods for human researching and testing.
Proponents of animal testing argue that it is necessary to research on animals for many reasons. One of the main arguments is that there is no alternative to animal testing and that using animals is the only way to make scientific breakthroughs that benefit humans. Proponents of animal testing argue that performing experiments on animals is necessary to prevent harm to humans. They cite examples such as the use of animals to help develop cures for devastating diseases such as polio and diabetes. However, as alternatives to animal testing increase, this argument grows weaker and weaker. In fact, in an article entitled, “Saving the animals: New ways to test products”, author Barnaby J. Feder (2007) claims that increased pressure against animal testing has forced corporations and laboratories to find alternative methods of testing efficacy and safety. Many companies now use engineered tissue, computer and software stimulation and other types of testing as alternatives to animal testing. Such methods of testing has led to a decrease in animal testing since 2005, and according to the article, “…the number of lab animals sacrificed in the United States has fallen since then by nearly 50 percent among the species tracked by the Department of Agriculture…” (Feder, 2007).
Another argument used by supporters of animal testing is that many animals are close genetically to humans and therefore offer the best testing results. However, this argument is flawed for a couple of reasons. First of all, drugs that appear to be fine on animals may not be safe and effective for humans. A well-known example of this is thalidomide. In the 1950s, pregnant women were given thalidomide, to help control nausea, which eventually caused over 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. Thalidomide was later tested on pregnant animals such as mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters with no apparent resulting birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses (Pippin & Sullivan). Clearly in this case, animal testing would not have predicted this drug’s horrific side effects on humans. Another example that animal testing was ineffective for animals is aspirin. Aspirin is harmful to some animals while it is fine for humans (Animal Testing Pros and Cons, 2014). These are only a few examples out of many that drugs were tested on animals that did not harm humans and vice versa. Even though that humans and chimpanzees are 99% genetically similar in DNA and mice are 98% genetically similar in DNA with humans, our bodily functions and reactions are different than chimpanzees, mice, and other animals. Just because we share similar biological processes with animals, this does not mean that we would have the same outcome for research and testing.
Finally, proponents of animal testing also claim that animal testing is regulated and safe.
However, this is far from the truth. In the 1960s, there was public outcry over the use of animals in scientific experiments. In response, the government created the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 as a way to regulate animal testing and protect animals. This federal law set minimum standards of care and housing for animals such as, dogs, cats, primates, rabbits, hamsters, and guinea pigs for both animal dealers and laboratories. Also, the laboratories were required to be registered. This law was extended to protection to all warm-blooded animals in the laboratory. Ironically, this law only applies to a small percentage of animals used in testing. The AWA reports that approximately 1.28 million animals per year are used in animal testing, gravely underestimating the number of animals used in experiments each year. The reason why? Certain types of animals are exempt from reporting. In fact, 95% of animals that are used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish” (Animal Welfare Institute). Thus, most animals used in research are not reported and statistics on the number of animals used each year in testing can be misleading. If these animals are not reported to the Animal Welfare Act, then they are not protected by the AWA legislation and their
treatment is virtually unregulated. So those who argue that animal testing is safe and regulated overlook the 95% of animals tested who fall into the unregulated categories mentioned above.
New developments in technology are decreasing the need for animal testing. For example, whereas scientists used to measure how long it takes a chemical to burn away the cornea of a rabbit’s eye, researchers can now drop that chemical onto cornea-like 3D tissue structure produced from human cells. There are numerous instances where technology and engineered tissues are reducing or eliminated the need for animal testing.
Another drawback is that by relying in animal testing, researchers may ignore potential cures and treatments that would be resulted from other sources.
Another reason against the use of animal testing is its cost. This can be much more expensive than using alternative methods, and it proves to be a waste of government research dollars.
In conclusion, as a society, we should take care of the weaker and innocent animals. It is our duty to help them. If one day in the future, are we going to use weaker humans, such as intellectually disabled for research and testing? A sign of a great society is when the people take care of the weaker humans and animals. Therefore, animal testing is a cruel and inhumane practice and should be outlawed. For many reasons that were stated above, animal testing has many flaws such as it is cruel to animals, it is not always accurate, costly research and technological alternatives to animal testing now exist. I strongly believe that the cruel, inhumane, and sometimes ineffective practice of animal testing should be banned.