Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned

Animal testing is a highly controversial topic and it raises a moral dilemma about whether it is ethical to harm animals in order to improve human lives, with many people strongly demanding that this practice be banned. In this essay, I shall argue that animal testing is justified since the benefits resulting from it outweigh the harms and thus should not be banned. Firstly, scientific research involving animals has had an essential importance in developing new medicines. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, most of the medical breakthroughs in the 20th century resulted from animal testing. For instance, penicillin, one of the most important discoveries in human history, which is estimated to have saved around 200 million lives, was tested on mice. Insulin, thanks to which millions of people suffering from diabetes mellitus are still alive and lead fairly normal lives, was discovered through experiment
where dogs had there their pancreases removed. Open heart surgeries and pacemakers were developed owing to research involving, once again, dogs. Secondly, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing just as much as people do. Studying a disease in certain species can help people, as well as all other species susceptible to that particular disease. Moreover, many endangered species would have been extinct by now, had not been the medicines derived from animal testing. Additionally, techniques for assisted reproduction have proved crucial in preserving many species by breeding them in captivity and then releasing them in their natural habitats. On the other hand, opponents of animal testing argue that it is cruel, painful and inhumane.
Although this may be partly true, in most of the cases animal do not experience any considerable pain. According to a 2004 USDA annual report, 57% of all research procedures using animals involved no more than a slight pain (i.e. injection). In 34% of the procedures, anesthesia and postoperative painkillers were used to relieve the pain. Only in 9% of the procedures, neither anesthesia nor painkillers could be used as they would have interfered with research results. Besides, in most developed countries there are strict laws regulating experiments conducted on animals. For example, in UK, animal testing is regulated under the Animals Act 1986 . The act stipulates that before starting any kind of research involving animals, a harm–benefit analysis must be done. In other words, competent authorities must estimate the likely harms experienced by the animals and the likely benefits to be delivered and then decide whether these benefit justify the
harms. Furthermore, those opposed to animal testing claim that there are methods that can replace the role of animals. They argue that these alternatives are more ethical and humane as well as less expensive. For instance, scientists are currently working on microchips, that is certainly a huge step that could revolutionize traditional testing and development of medicines in the future, nonetheless, for the time being there is no appropriate solution that can fully substitute testing on a living, whole-body system. To summarize, animal testing may be harmful to a certain degree, but at the same time it has proved vital in saving improving millions of human as well as animas` lives; therefore its use is morally justified and should not be banned. Nevertheless, it should be carried out in a responsible and careful manner, strictly regulated and supervised and used only when there are no other options left. Hopefully, in the foreseeable future scientists will manage to find adequate animal-free alternatives for testing and developing drugs and medical procedures; consequently there would be no longer need to sacrifice animals for a higher cause.