Human Testing Argumentative Essay

436 Words2 Pages
I am on the affirmative, and I agree with human experiments. The facts speak for themselves. Not only has the human lifespan increased, but we have cured multiple diseases that could have wiped out the human race as a whole. Smallpox is a distant memory thanks to human experimentation. We are less susceptible to what used to be common illnesses. We have also extended our knowledge of the human body and mind. Without human experimentation many of the diseases that were previously eradicated would still be prevalent, and plaguing mankind.

As stated earlier, our lives would have been much different if human experimentation hadn 't taken place. If people like Edward Jenner, who invented the smallpox vaccination had thought that human experimentation was unethical, our population as of current would be much less, possibly even eliminated. Mikhael V. Blagosklonny has written a book on aging, and has proven my point even more. According to his studies and research, the human lifespan has increased by 75% in a century because of human experimentation. Just three centuries ago, life expectancy was less than 16 years and 75% of people born in London in 1662 died before they reached the age of 26 (Graunt 's life table).

According to IFLScience, research including human subjects isn’t necessarily ethically unacceptable. It seems that the pros
…show more content…
The Nuremberg Code exists for a reason. Scientists cannot experiment without full consent of the subject, meaning that the subject accepts the outcome in full. I argue that nothing can be done unethically in these experiments. If any experiment were to step out of the boundaries of these rules, the scientists responsible would be sent to prison. Nothing about human experiments is unethical, because rules have been established to keep the subjects
Open Document