The Morality Of Animal Testing
Sarah Gervasi
Sunmi Kang
College Writing 112
Unit 3 Essay Draft 4
11/6/12
The Morality of Animal Testing
Animal testing is undoubtedly one of the most controversial issues in modern society. This practice began in the 19th century; animals were used to test dosing of certain drugs and chemicals. In the 1920’s, animals were also being used to test pesticides and food additives (Fano, 11). Today, animal testing is used to study everything from cosmetics to cancer. With such a wide range of opinions on animal rights and human priority, it is no wonder that this topic is so controversial. There are people who have an extreme view on the issue and are either completely pro or completely con. In my opinion, the issue of animal testing is far too complex for one simple answer; its morality lies somewhere in between the two poles. Animal testing is acceptable if it results in saving people’s lives. It is not acceptable, however, if it results in personal or cosmetic products that are far from vital to the human race.
Those who are in favor of animal testing justify it many different ways. Thomas Hamm, a toxicologist and veterinarian, argues that, “We can’t protect the environment, or people in general, without doing some animal testing. If you’re pro-environment but opposed to animal testing, you’re on shaky ground, because the two positions just aren’t compatible with each other” (Fano, 44). In order to have a safe and successful society, he argues, we must use animals to test chemicals, drugs, treatments, and anything else that will further our knowledge of improving the world, at least for humans. Many people are of the same mind as Hamm. Animal testing reduces the risks of many products, like cosmetics and medication, among many others. Scientists can put safety standards in place for products based on their findings via animal testing. Often, animals will react badly or even die from certain chemicals or combinations, make the humans that use the products
Sunmi Kang
College Writing 112
Unit 3 Essay Draft 4
11/6/12
The Morality of Animal Testing
Animal testing is undoubtedly one of the most controversial issues in modern society. This practice began in the 19th century; animals were used to test dosing of certain drugs and chemicals. In the 1920’s, animals were also being used to test pesticides and food additives (Fano, 11). Today, animal testing is used to study everything from cosmetics to cancer. With such a wide range of opinions on animal rights and human priority, it is no wonder that this topic is so controversial. There are people who have an extreme view on the issue and are either completely pro or completely con. In my opinion, the issue of animal testing is far too complex for one simple answer; its morality lies somewhere in between the two poles. Animal testing is acceptable if it results in saving people’s lives. It is not acceptable, however, if it results in personal or cosmetic products that are far from vital to the human race.
Those who are in favor of animal testing justify it many different ways. Thomas Hamm, a toxicologist and veterinarian, argues that, “We can’t protect the environment, or people in general, without doing some animal testing. If you’re pro-environment but opposed to animal testing, you’re on shaky ground, because the two positions just aren’t compatible with each other” (Fano, 44). In order to have a safe and successful society, he argues, we must use animals to test chemicals, drugs, treatments, and anything else that will further our knowledge of improving the world, at least for humans. Many people are of the same mind as Hamm. Animal testing reduces the risks of many products, like cosmetics and medication, among many others. Scientists can put safety standards in place for products based on their findings via animal testing. Often, animals will react badly or even die from certain chemicals or combinations, make the humans that use the products
Cited: * Hayhurst, Chris. Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. print. * Fano, Alex. Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health, and Environmental Policy. New York: Zed Books Ltd., 1997. print. * Balls, Michael. “Alternatives to Animal Testing: Toward Reducing Uncertainty and Unintended Consequences.” AATEX 16.3 (2011): 101-110 * Blue, Laura. “How Much Does Animal Testing Tell Us?” Time Magazine 17 June 2008. online. * Ellin, Abby. “Leaving Animals Out of the Cosmetics Picture.” New York Times 28 December 2011. online.