The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Kirk Angelo M. Madrazo
English 28
7/31/2014
Research Paper
Animal Testing Humans and animals have been living side by side ever since planet Earth gave birth to its first human beings. Throughout time, however, human race have started to take the top of the food chain and with the food chain came the whole planet. This “reign” over the planet has put animals in an extremely difficult situation. We human beings started to take and take for ourselves leaving Earth’s animals very limited resources to live with. These animals once lived in peace and harmony alongside humans. But humans took over and took everything for themselves. But it seems that this “taking” is not enough to make the animals fear human race. What’s worse is that we humans use animals as test subjects for their own experiments. Whether it is for the betterment of our society or the health of each individual behind the societies, animals must not be abused. Animal testing must be minimized. According to Ian Murnaghan, M.Sc, on his piece, “The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing,” the majority of the scientific society is strongly for animal testing. They see that humans are superior to animal life (Murnaghan). This belief justifies the use of animals in testing. The unfortunate truth, however, is that a lot of these creatures go
through tests for materials that will never actually see confirmation or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing that many view as a major negative against the practice (Murnaghan). The public might see it that the animals died in vain without any direct benefit to humans occurring. This must happen all the time with the issue on animal testing. Animals go through tests that people give them without any benefits given for the public. The animal’s lives were wasted for nothing. But this is only one reason why animal testing should be minimized. In animal experimentation, countless animal lives are experimented on. After running tests and experimentation, these animals are killed. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives inside cages in captivity being isolated from their natural habitats. The Cambridge Royal Society of Chemistry on E.Ronald’s piece, “Alternatives to Animal Testing”, shares to the public that the keeping of these animals, dead or alive, generally costs an enormous amount of money. The live ones must be fed, housed, cared for, and treated with drugs or an identical experimental substance. On top of that, animal testing may occur more than once and over the course of some longer time, which means that additional costs are measured. The price of animals themselves must also be factored into the equation as well. There are also companies who breed animals specifically for testing and animals can be purchased through them (Ronald). Not to mention the risks of having animals tested on. I mean, animals are still relatively different from humans. All that the animal testing does is give human beings a peace of mind to take newly released substances. It makes the general public think that it is safe to take the substances just because the animals survived the tests. But history has showed that animal testing is not full proof. According to Peggy Carlson on “Why We Don’t Need Animal Experimentation,” “nearly everything that medicine has learned about what substances cause human cancer and birth defects has come from human clinical and epidemiological studies because animal experiments do not accurately predict what occurs in humans (Carlson 86).” Also, Dr. Irwin Bross, former Director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest private cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, states on his piece intended for the congress, “Animals in Cancer Research: A Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud,” “while conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either on the prevention or treatment of cancer (Bross).” This being said, a large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its birth, widely been a waste of time and resources. Even though the facts are clear, many substances which cause cancer in humans are still being marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests. As expressed by Dr. Werner Hartinger of Germany, in regard to cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical chemical industry, “Their constant consumption is legalized on the basis of misleading animal experiments... which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security (Hartinger).” Security is also an issue when it comes to the standards of the public who will take the substances. People would want animals to be tested on first before coming to a conclusion whether or not to take the substances. But did the public ever think about how humans and animals are very much different from each other? And that some sickness may still arise from these substances even though they have been tested on animals? Or does the public only want this for placid minds when it comes to new medical products? Animal welfare for me is just the same as human rights; every animal must be born free and humans shouldn’t be the ones to take this freedom away. Being the ones that can reason, we should actively take part in conserving and taking care of every living creature on this planet. This is what separates us from animals; we can take care of them. There are alternatives to preventing animal testing, and it depends on each person to decide whether to use the alternatives or continue with these harmful, unethical processes. It is very simple. All we need to do is to minimize our animal usage for tests. Gradually, it will disappear as science continuously advances. We have to do something about this issue and not wait until there are no more animals to run tests on, in that way we can change the world for the better not only for humans, but also for the creatures that live with us today.

Works Cited
Bross, Irwin.
“Animals in Cancer Research: A Multi-Billion Dollar Fraud”. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. Bernard A. Schwetz. Lincolnwood. 1982. 128-129. Print. Carlson, Peggy. “Why We Don’t Need Animal Experimentation”. Natural Acts Readings on Nature and the_Environment. New York: St. Martin’s. 85-86 Hartinger, Werner. “Hans Ruesch in Conversation with Dr.Werner Hartinger.” YouTube. YouTube, 7 Sept. 2008. Web.1 August 2014. Murnaghan, Ian. aboutanimaltesting.co.uk. Version number. Ian Murnaghan BSc, M.Sc. 23 August 2014. Web. 31 July 2014. Ronald, E. “Alternatives to Animal Testing.” The Journal of Biomedical Research 49.3
(2005): 319-336. JSTOR. Web. 1 August 2014.