Down With Animal Testing There are certain things about animal testing that the community doesn’t know. Some people know what happens to those animals and they don’t want to face what happens. The inhumane treatment of animals used for research is well documented. There are many pros and cons considering the use of the animals in medical research. Animals shouldn’t be used for testing because it’s inhumane and it will make the population go down.
This fact shows that even though the drugs have been developed and tested successfully on animals, they are not 100 percent safe. So the argument for animal tests dissolves. Furthermore, apparently the USA wastes more than 16 billion US dollars annually on animal testing. 16 billion dollars! If they invested this money on other projects such as welfare, this would save a lot of people without torturing
These people strongly believe that animals also carry rights like humans and it’s against the rights to change their DNA and genetically modify it for human use. Lastly, the people also strongly disagree with the fact that hundreds of these animals are used for clinical trial research and transgenic animals are not unlike. 2. They can be unsafe for human consumption: - The safety for the products produced by transgenic animal is no guarantee. This is true because not all experiments on transgenic animals are effective.
Many of the methods that are used are cruel to the animal and makes them suffer. Although animal testing has helped scientists to find cures, it comes at a heavy price. Animal testing should not be allowed to continue. One of the main problems with animal testing are the methods that are used. While some methods are painless to the animal, many of them harm the animal with no relief provided to them.
There should not be a usage of animal testing because it is cruel and inhumane. Although animal testing could potentially save lives, it is still killing millions of animals lives in the process. Primates at NIRC were so stressed that they were, "tearing gaping wounds into their
Most of the drugs tested on animals could still be dangerous and make the animal’s sacrifice worthless. Even though animal testing has also helped to create several life-saving cures and treatments, hundreds of animals had to die, all of them having no need or responsibility to sacrifice themselves for humans. When these cures are being made, a disease may only effect ten to fifteen people, but humans would still test on hundreds of animals. A jungle filled with monkeys could be captured and tested on until they die, for just a couple of humans that are sick with a disease that requires a medicine unable to found within animal testing, but the animals would still die. Not only does animal testing not give 100% accurate results, there are also many other ways that can help humans test
It tells all about the negative details of animal testing and the harming to the animals, but it doesn’t include the benefits of animal testing. It talks about the history of developments in the medical field but denies the fact that animal testing has helped those developments. This information will help me talk about the other side of my argument. It 's good to touch base
this need to stop animals don 't have a voice they can 't say stop that hurts they can 't say what wrong with them. If they were to test it on themselves then we can test animals but it doesn 't give them permission and if they were willing to put it in themselves then they wouldn 't need to test it on the animals. Too many animals are dying
Some groups argue it is ethical, while others insist that the process is unethical, and there is a last group advocating for alternatives in the testing other than the use of animals. Animal testing should be banned because it is an unethical process that subjects animals to so much pain. In addition, it should be banned because, it is inaccurate, unreliable, and its benefits to human beings have not yet been fully confirmed by the current research. Animal testing should be banned because it is an unethical process. According to statistics, about 128 million animals which include guinea pigs, cats, rats, hamsters, dogs, frogs, hamsters, dogs,
Based on his observations, he concluded that because eight of twelve children had intestinal abnormalities, the MMR vaccine had a link with autism. However, this study was proven to be unethical due to the fact that Wakefield paid children at a party in exchange for blood samples involved in the study. Ultimately, though the study was retracted, it had already sprung an increase in vaccine hesitancy, which is defined as the “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccination services” (World Health Organization). False claims towards vaccinations such as Wakefield’s are what spark a fear in parents and lead to the misconception that the harms of vaccines outweigh the