Abolish Animal Testing

To start off, I think animal testing is wrong. It may benefit OUR lives, but it doesn’t for the animals being tested on. It is cruel, inhumane, and sometimes isn’t necessary for the product. There are alternatives to this and it can cause much pain and suffering to the animals. In my opinion, animal testing is wrong and here are my reasons why I think so.

Why Animal Testing is Wrong The human race has greatly benefitted through the use of animals. They have not only been a great form of companionship for people, but have also helped with the success in the world of medicine. For many years, the rights of animals and animal experimentation have been up for debate on whether or not it should be legal. Some may find that animal testing has led to major advancements in the medical world and that it is a small price to pay to save millions of lives, but others believe it is inhumane and that animals should be given the same rights as humans.

Many people fight for animal rights. They demand that animal testing should be banned. They think that it is very unethical and wasteful. With the development of technologies, people think that animal testing is archaic, and there are many alternative ways. Often animal testing fails, and it is cruel to play with their lives.

There have been numerous recorded examples of drugs that have worked on animals, but then proceeded to not work on humans. Animal testing is misleading, “94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials” (Nine). Not only does this prove that animal testing is ultimately ineffective, but it also shows how the deceiving results could potentially cause harm to humans. For example, in the 1950s a sleeping pill called thalidomide was commercially released as it was proved to be effective on animals. However, the pill went on to cause more than 10,000 babies to be born with birth defects (Science).

The animal is used in research which is meant to benefit human beings. But although it is possible to stop using animals for in research, there is a limited chance of getting animals out of human research activities. Animals are used in research where laws are stating it is unethical to use human subjects. Many people may wonder why laws prohibit the use of human subjects but allow animal subjects. Although different people may argue differently the main reason is what Singer is fighting for which is equality of human lives and animal lives.

Luckily ASPCA has many field rescues, medical operations, and behavioral treatment. All these methods may need to be used depending on the dogs/cats situation, but no matter how bad the situation is, ASPCA has a way to fix it and will do what is right. ASPCA has been very successful with giving animals a good home and an amazing life, but they would not have been able to do any of that if it weren't for the money and time from volunteers (ASPCA). All pets should have a great loving home and a kind hearted owner(s) who will treat them with love and care. This organization is extremely important because without ASPCA, first off there would be millions of dogs/cats that would’ve never had

Animal experiments are conducted to test whether the manufactured drugs, that are going to be put out in the market, are safe. They are also conducted as research purposes, like discovering cures for untreatable diseases. However, animal testing has been called in to question because its cruelty and lack of promised results. Is it possible to assume animal testing has become unnecessary?

These people would also say it is difficult to replace animals because other options are more difficult to test on. According to Ferdowsian, replacing animals in research would be difficult because the biology and genetic make up of animals is too similar to humans to be easy to replicate. Therefore, removing all animal testing would be a difficult task because testing the products on an actual organism allow researchers to mirror the outcomes of the products on humans. However, Ferdowsian continues by stating, “While it is important to acknowledge limitations to non-animal methods remain, recent developments demonstrate that these limitations should be viewed as rousing challenges rather than insurmountable obstacles.” (par. 21)

As a young girl, I simply thought that doctors just treated diseases. When one was sick they went to the doctor, the doctor diagnosed them and gave them a suitable treatment. However, as a first year medical student I now know that this is not the case. In modern society doctors don’t treat diseases- they treat the people who have the diseases. It’s not just medical students or people in the medical profession who know this- modern society as a whole has come to accept the fact that doctors are no longer medical scientists but carers who put their patients needs first and not the disease or illness they may have.

Animal testing should be banned as empathy is a criteria everyone should have and it is not the most reliable method anymore. This report will focus on three aspects including cruelty towards animals, the reliability and the difference between animals and human, to act as the proof of why animal testing should be banned.

Those in favor of testing argue that animal testing increases the longevity of humanity and is a pioneer for medical research. Opponents propose safer alternative solutions, and reveal the inhumane aspects of animal testing. But, which side has a more persuasive argument? A student Shany Sun from Lynbrook High, discusses in her article, “The truth behind animal testing,” the overall benefits associated with

Animals testing is torture and bad so we should stop testing on animals . Animal testing is mean and dangerous to the animals being tested on. One example is they were trying to test different shampoos to see if any of them burned their eyes. To do this they hold them up by there feet with clips to test the shampoos. They don’t get feed or taken care of.

This is why scientists first test the vaccinations on animals. Although this practice further helps mankind stay healthy, many are against this because many companies mistreat the animals they test their products on. That’s why there are laboratory animal technicians. These workers ensure that the animals in laboratories are treated

Laboratory research on animals has helped researchers have a better understanding on treating illnesses such as breast cancer, brain injury, leukemia, malaria, and much more (ProCon.org). What else is the best option to test a hypothesis on other than a person. The best way to test a hypothesis is on a living organism since humans and animals both have very integrated bodies. Since testing, a drug requires a body to circulate blood throughout the body to get the full effect to be able to see the full potential of the side effects, which may include blindness, which cannot be determined on just tissue. Human and animal DNA is very similar to mice, mice are 98% genetically similar to humans and they all have the same set of organs as a human.

It would eliminate intellectual competition and therefore could eliminate innovation and progress. For these reasons I think it is immoral. However, in certain cases, biomedical enhancements of intellect can be justifiably moral. People with attention deficits are given medication to aid their concentration: this is not immoral in my opinion, it simply evens the playing field: it doesn’t simply give everyone the same level of intelligence, it gives everyone an even opportunity to attain a higher