A different approach to research is needed to bring relief to animals and to preserve animal species. People think that animals have no rights, because they are a lower species than humans. Other people think that animals have feelings, thoughts, goals, needs, and desires. Animals have those, because they basically have the same function as humans. If the animals had those feelings, then they should have respect.
Although, this isn’t the case because there are laws that regulate how the animal should be cared for such as the Federal Animal Welfare Act. To add to this, not only do animals have to be treated well because of the laws but also because they would make inaccurate results otherwise. Procon.org argues, “stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results.” This means that the scientists have no choice but to make sure the animals are well taken care
Many different species of animal are used for animal testing some common ones include mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, and hamsters. One of the reasons why some people believe that animal testing is beneficial is because it uses animals that are a close match to humans, this however is not true. Animal cell structures and human cell structures are not alike, and therefore animals make poor test subjects. The majority of animal tests do not contribute to safer makeup products. Animal testing does not have a value in reassuring the safety of makeup products and it has been proven that computers and new modern technology can be more
Animal testing has become a double-edged sword topic all around the world. Researchers believe that it is morally ethical to conduct extreme research procedures on animals when it is unethical to conduct on humans. Research is responsible for many medical breakthroughs and an important factor to the development of medical advances is the inclusion of animals in research. Medical research with the help of animal testing has prevented hepatitis B, measles, etc. (Karayiannis et al.
If this money and time were put towards more human-based research, the results would be more useful towards finding cures. Human-based testing is the greatest solution to this issue of testing on animals. There are many methods of this form of testing too. The tests could occur using human tissue, cells, cadavers, and patient simulators. These alternative forms to animal testing are available, but they aren’t required for use by law so they often aren’t implemented (“Animal Rights is a Bad Science” 1).
For example, author Ian Murnaghan says that, “Animal testing is held particularly important for its contribution to the development of insulin, antibiotics, vaccines and drugs with high mortality rates such as cancer.” (Murnaghan) This means that, animal testing is important to cancer research. Also it means that that the development for antibiotics and other medicines need animal testing. Cancer patients need antibiotics to treat their cancer. A lot of medicines that saved people were tested on animals before hand. Also vaccines for animals would not be around if we could not test on animals.
Furthermore, while critics argue that laws have been issued which protect the physical and mental health of animals used as test subjects, the Animal Welfare Act is only US law that governs the use of laboratory animals. For example, the People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) wrote an article regarding the Animal Welfare Act and its inefficiency in protecting lab animals. The article explained that no experiment is prohibited, no matter how grievous or petty; that painkillers are never required; and when alternatives to animal test subjects are feasible, federal law does not require their use. This alludes to the fact that the only law attempting is allowing laboratory animals to be tortured. They can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged.
In his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer defends a pro-animal argument. The goal of the argument is not to lower the status of humans, but to elevate the status of animals. He compares the belief that humans should always take precedence over issues about animals to the prejudice of slave owners against their slaves. He states that it is easy to look back and criticize the prejudices of the people who lived back then, but it is much harder to criticize ourselves, our beliefs, and whatever prejudices we may hold and actually try to change them. In his argument for animal rights, he first talks about equal consideration for the suffering of animals.
If more people would be tested on in place of animals, there 'd be less poverty, less animal suffering, and more accurate results” (Emily16 4). The quote undermines the purpose of using animals for testing. Therefore, I disagree with Emily16 because she believe if we use human as test subject in place of animals like rat, mice there will be less poverty in the world, that is just an absurd statement. Emily16 clearly does not think it is inhumane if we conduct test on human and consequently not pleasing human which can ends up causing
Humans cannot explain making life better for themselves by randomly torturing and murdering millions of animals per day to undergo useless laboratory experiments to test products. Animals must be treated according to animal rights this does not include dumping them into cages like trash and torturing them. After all, aren’t we part of the animal kingdom too? The alternative mentioned above should be used to as it is a more efficient method of testing products since the human physiology is not the same as the animal physiology and it also helps to preserve many animal’s lives. After all of this is said and done can you still support animal testing?