The Argument In Favor Of Animal Testing

Animals are the primary test subjects for experimental research being performed in the scientific field around the world today. Despite the widespread use of animal testing, the issue remains a thriving debate formed on the argument of morality over practicality and function. Many proponents of animal testing argue that the research performed on these test subjects has led to medical breakthroughs that would still be a mystery today without the use of animals as testing subjects. Proponents correlate the success of animal testing with the similarities in animals genomes to that of the humans. In contrast, opponents of testing being conducted on animals argue that due to the fact that our genomes are not copies of the animals used, that there
Proponents of animal testing explain that animals have contributed to major breakthroughs with vaccines, with providing insulin for diabetics, with treatments for “breast cancer, brain injury, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis”(Pro 1) and much more. In spite of the breakthroughs that correspond with the use of animal testing, opinions of this practice argue that there are more efficient and humane ways to achieve this result. On August 24, 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Animal Welfare Act. The AWA regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition, to insure that their needs are met in a humane way. In 2009 the Humane Society conducted an undercover study on New Iberia Research Center’s treatment of animals and found the company was liable for a minimum of 338 violations of the Animal Welfare Act (). Within the the 108-page complaint filed to the United States Department of Agriculture the Humane Society was described witnessing extreme abuse of animals. One account describes witnessing distressed primates self-mutilating themselves “by tearing gaping wounds into their arms and legs” ( Site humane society
Due to the complexity of a multicellular system, supporters of using animals as test subjects argue that although useful running test on single cell organism is not as accurate (Pro 2). Testing on single cell organisms would not show the potential effects on the central nervous system, endocrine system, or immune system -- all of which could cause severe damage or death to those who consume the drug (“Pro 2”). In contrast opponents argue, that it is better than using voluntary human test subjects to use to see the potential effects of drugs on human subjects. The opposition also offers up the solution of using artificial human skin and organs grown from stem cells, thus eliminating the need for animal testing altogether. One argument made by advocates against animal testing is that no medical breakthroughs are directly correspondent to the use of animals as test subjects. Instead, the breakthroughs could be explained by all of the funding that is received by organizations that use animals as test subjects. Advocates of other alternatives argue that equal success would come out of corporations that use animal free testing if they were to receive the same amount of