Although different people may argue differently the main reason is what Singer is fighting for which is equality of human lives and animal lives. Currently, human’s life is accorded a higher value than animal’s life (Singer, 1973) . The animal has been used in genetic manipulation experiments, but it is illegal to use human subjects in similar research activities. Human believes they have authority over animals hence it is difficult to prevent them from using animals for research especially when the results are not
In spite of that, some people believe that animal testing is not essential and it should be banned because animals are different from humans physically. In addition, they believe that animal tests are a waste of time and money and there are lower cost alternative methods and more effective. Our purpose of this essay is to prove that animal testing is important and has a lot of benefits and advantages for humanity. Using animals in medical and scientific experiments is necessary, because it finds many cures and treatments, animals bodies are almost similar to the human bodies, also it benefits the animals themselves from diseases. One of the major issues that support animal testing is the fact that it has been used successfully in history to develop cures and treatments for diseases which killed human being in large numbers.
Ellen Frankel & Jeffrey (2001) considered that testings should be using human instead of animals for good scientific reasons. Although some of the animals are similar to human, the DNA are different. As a result, the side effects that made by the medicine on animals and humans may not the same. Moreover, the size of humans are different from the animals, the same dose of drug may harmful some small size animals like rabbits but do not have effects on humans. It is clear that there are both advantages and disadvantages to using live animals for scientific research.
It is also dangerous when they test on animals because they could get hurt and die. Their bodies and DNA are not the same and some experiments to find cures they have to either hurt the animal or kill it. Millions of animals like rabbits, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals are used by scientists because they think that they will be able to find a cure for humans. To research on them, they will need to infect them with the disease and the disease could possibly be deadly. Organizations like PETA were able to find the cure of cancer on mice, but the cure did not work on humans (PETA).
They have a basic moral right to respectful treatment (Regan, 1985). Some scientist uses animals without any permission to the animal welfare. Animals are not humans so people should not use them for scientific testing to make products that are not safe. Mice are the most used animal for scientific testing. Mankind is constructing laws for animals’ right, but because of having an inhumane scientist, they violate the rules and make their experiments.
Henry E. Heffner and Carl Cohen who are proponents of animal experimentation point out that it is necessary because it can protect human health. However, Robert Garner and Sarah Rose A. Miller who are opponents of animal experimentation claim that it is unacceptable because it causes animals to suffer. Two aspects of the arguments about animal research are about the use of laboratory animals and the idea of using substitution for live animals, and although the authors mostly disagree
Scientists attempt to link the results of testing drugs on animals to its effectiveness on humans. There is an extreme lack of results that comes from animal testing, furthering that scientists should use methods that do not involve animals when testing new drugs and other medical
Many of the concerns of the ethicality of animal experimentation is understood by the people who still believe animal testing is necessary. Many regulations are enforced on animal studies in an attempt to make them as moral as possible. Additionally, there are also campaigns that advocate the regulation on animal testing “ which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices “ (Hajar 7). They understand the upset at the idea of animal testing, and they want to appease the masses by keeping the testing as humane as it can possibly be. Even with all of the outcry, there is a large group of people that see animal experimentation as a necessary evil.
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) She is essentially saying that while it will be difficult to remove animal testing, science should not give up on this goal just because it will prove
Animal testing causes unneeded death to millions of animals that aren 't even protected under the Animal Welfare Act, and most experiments done on animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. But, there are also benefits to animal testing. For example, we wouldn 't have the polio vaccine or medical steps toward curing cancer. Even though that these benefits do exist it does not give these laboratories the right to abuse and force the animals into these tests, therefore, they should not be