Animal Testing: Necessary Or Appropriate Research Subjects?

Issues related to animal testing are now frequently discussed. The debate about animal testing is often about if it is morally right or wrong to dominate an animal’s life to achieve human's various goals. In recent years, experiments on animals such as mice and monkey for biomedical research has been heavily critisized by various animal protection groups that such action is inhumane against animals. Animals in research facilities and cosmetics companies are suffering in pain and even death during experiments. An estimated 26 million animals are used in animal testing every year in the United States. Is animal testing really an activity that must be practiced to reach human's goal? Some people would say animal testing should be practiced for the reason animals are appropriate research subjects because they are fairly similar to human beings in many ways or it should be practiced as animals themselves benefit from the results of

There is no unambiguous evidence that proves animal testing is essential for medical researches. In fact, the increasing evidence shows that it is actually an ineffective way to understand human physiology and others because humans are different from other animals in anatomy, genetics and metabolism. If science research field was given enough fund to do animal-free alternatives, other solutions to replace animal testing can certainly be found. In reality, Humane Research Australia (HRA) reports that many discoveries made by non-animal methods were later verified by animal experiments, which gives false credit to animal use and indirectly making people rely more on and have faith in animal testing. For example, HRA notes, “Ovarian function was demonstrated by physician Dr. Robert. T. Morris in 1895 in surgical procedures on women, yet history credits the discovery to Emil Knauer who reproduced the procedure in rabbits in