Animal Testing Wrong

997 Words4 Pages
95% of animals being used for animal testing are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). That is a high percentage of animals not protected and have a high chance of being mistreated. That is only a part of the problem when it comes to animal testing. The bigger issue is that the anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Their is no reason to test animals if it could mislead researchers from breakthroughs. By performing clinical trials on humans their would be better chances of finding cures and treatments.
Scientists have developed alternative methods of testing that now can replace the need for animals. They have developed an “in vitro (in glass) testing, such
…show more content…
They are supported by everyday people who believe that animal testing is wrong and that in today’s science we can find something more solvable. Anyone who believes that animal testing is inhuman can step up and donate and support the HSI in stopping animals from suffering around the world. HSI is already working on saving more than 100 million animals around the world as well. By converting over to 21st century science. Scientist are uncovering the cause of human illness from vital organs down to the tiniest cells. Replacing animal testing saving millions of animals every year. In 2015 HSI had strong campaigns by #BeCrueltyFree team led New Zealand to ban cosmetic testing on animals. In South Korea to make government-approved non-animal alternatives a legal requirement for cosmetics testing, and both Canada and Taiwan to propose legislation to end cosmetic cruelty. Also, in Brazil and India heeded HSI call to remove a year long dog poisoning test protocol and other cruel studies from its safety testing requirements for pesticides, while EU has taken up a number of animal testing alternatives by HSI that could save millions of animals over the coming…show more content…
Animals would not have to live their whole life locked away and humans could be introduced to new breakthroughs and treatment options. Already three states (CA, NJ, NY) have already passed legislation mandating that federally approved non-animal alternatives, when available, be used for product testing place of animals. If more states could get on board then animals testing could come to a stop. Animals are supposed to be protected by the AWA and the Policy on Humane care (PHS) and Use of Laboratory Animals are the two main regulations governing the use of animals in U.S. labs. However, even with the supposed “protections” afforded by the AWA and PHS policy, millions of animals continue to suffer and die in unnecessary, inadequately monitored, and counterproductive research. In the end, the minimal protections offered by the AWA and PHS policy provide no real safety or relief to the millions of animals in labs and offer only a false sense of security to the caring public. All it takes is for people to know the facts about animal testing and what truly goes on behind closed doors. If more people understood how it affects the lives of animals, maybe, just maybe their could be a change in the way people think about animal
Open Document