Animal Experimentation Is Necessary In Human Life

1016 Words5 Pages
People have animals, especially dogs and cats, as pets. They take care of animals and spend their lives together. However, sacrificing animals is necessary for human life to survive. Moreover, using animal experimentation is common because this can improve our health. Henry E. Heffner and Carl Cohen who are proponents of animal experimentation point out that it is necessary because it can protect human health. However, Robert Garner and Sarah Rose A. Miller who are opponents of animal experimentation claim that it is unacceptable because it causes animals to suffer. Two aspects of the arguments about animal research are about the use of laboratory animals and the idea of using substitution for live animals, and although the authors mostly disagree…show more content…
Opponents of animal experimentation point out that useful alternatives exist. Numerous viable alternatives exist; therefore, people should examine and improve it to replace animals (Miller 1). Scientists and physicians did not consider about this problem seriously because thinking about alternatives is more difficult than using animal routinely (Garner 71). Therefore, people should seek the alternatives for not using animal. On the other hand, proponents of animal experimentation claim that there are no useful alternatives. Cohen points out that useful alternatives have not been established yet (2). For example, tissue samples were inspected as alternatives; yet, it did not work because people should test vaccine as living organs which is complicated. Therefore, Cohen points out that, “We can learn [the full organic effect] only by studying the outcome of its use on live animals who are not human” (2). In other words, living animals are the only non-human creatures that can get the results about the reaction of vaccines, such as side effects. Moreover, computer simulation was conceived that it would be alternatives instead of animals. However, computer simulation is not yet sophisticated enough to get the information about side effect correctly (Cohen 2). Therefore, computer is not developed yet to catch side effect. However, Miller responds that animal…show more content…
On the other hand, similarity in the argument is that animals should be replaced if there are effective alternatives and it was useful in the past. Because of these differences between opponent’s opinion and proponents about animal experimentation, argument about animal experimentation often leads to vigorous debate. It is likely that the case of animal experimentation may decrease in the future. Therefore, people should discover alternatives, otherwise there will be no test to see side

More about Animal Experimentation Is Necessary In Human Life

Open Document