Why Is Animal Testing Unethical

Animals are not like us on the physical part, but that doesn’t mean that we have the right to kill, hurt or even experiment with them. If you ever had a pet or knew someone related to you who had a pet, they’d probably always be talking about how kind, sweet, beautiful, and lovely their animals are. Animal are even used to test products such as Shampoos, perfumes and cosmetics. Those products aren’t like the ones we use, they have different types of chemicals and they try them on the animals to see if it will affect us. Animals testing should not occur because killing an animal is not helping us It’s messing up the world.

Some believe there is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system. Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system. Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. Also, conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures.

Through research, outreach, education, legislation, and policy change, NEAVS advocates for replacing animals with modern alternatives that are ethically, humanely, and scientifically superior. This article was written to inform and persuade those who are using animals as test subjects that there are many alternatives available, which are more effective and more reliable than animal testing. The article mentions several different alternative methods that can be used as opposed to animal testing. It mentions that in-vitro testing isn’t the only form of non-animal alternative testing that exists, as most commonly thought. It also gives multiple cases where animal testing was strictly unreliable and caused great mishaps among many communities relying on this treacherousness.

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)

However; animal testing saves not only lots of people's lives, but also animals’ too. It is very important and even necessary for having a healthy environment, without diseases. It is unethical to keep animals in laboratories and make them suffer from pain. However, animal research is highly regulated with laws, and any unjustified action will not take place during the testing. All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility.

Even though, humans often progress from successful animal research, the pain, the inflictions, and the deaths of animals are not worth the human asset. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or to test the safety

Mistreating animals as if one does not care for them is the same as mistreating humans. By mistreating poor doubtless animals it affects them and can sometimes lead into suffering stress. If humans are able to protect each other from harm, then why cannot animals do the same thing by having rights? This question is usefully asked for those who try to protect the rights of animals. In the article Of Primates and Personhood the author Ed Yong, a science journalist, contends, “I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals… ‘all creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status’”

Animal testing is a highly controversial subject, disputed among many. It is evidently not pleasant to animals, but it is extremely beneficial for scientific findings. Some say it is a necessary evil, and some say it is animal cruelty. Others cannot simply make up their minds about this subject. Although many people are against animal testing, it must continue due to medicine development, advantages of testing animals over other subjects, and the regulated experiments for the animals’ safety.

The animals are being hurt, mentally and physically. Animals should not be used in dangerous jobs because they are being taken advantage of, and sometimes even abused. Animals are constantly dying due to being forced to partake in experiments, and it is not morally right to use animals in such dangerous situations. The military is using and taking advantage of innocent animals. Groups such as the army use animals, like cats and pigs, to perform medical training on.

This new policy ensures that the use of animals is permissible as long as it is approved by the necessary agencies and standards of animal welfare and care. By this law, this protects the animals from abuse from illegal animal testing. Clinical testing were filtered and sort out after the law was enforced to minimized the use of animals. Through this laws and procedures, animal testing is acquiring more positive feedback since the officials are doing something to minimized and protect them. Considering it morally, is a judgment where we have to think of the greater good and the benefits it may give the humans.

Topic Sentence/Main Claim: Many people think animal testing is bad because it is “unethical”. This is not a very good claim because animal testing helps us with so many things without harming humans. The government is also taking away all of the unnecessary animals in labs. Many people say that we would fund new medicines faster if we use humans for testing. If we did testing on humans we would find cures faster but we would be harming ourselves, when animals do a good job and don’t harm any humans.

Although the idea of testing with animals may sound horrible, animal testing is extremely necessary to keep developing new medicines, and treatments. The benefits of animal testing outweigh the cons of hurting animals for our own wellbeing. These benefits include, many long found treatments and cures that has helped many people throughout the years. Animal testing is also the only way that scientists can properly test on. And lastly, whether many people believe it or not it also benefits animals as well.

Animal Rights In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be used for medical testing or other kind of testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternatives now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing can save lives.

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. 2004).

Laboratory Animal Technicians In our day in age, humanity is constantly threatened by evolving viruses and diseases that could possibly wipe out our population. To combat these dangers, we create vaccinations that give our bodies a kind of shield. However, scientists can not immediately test the vaccination on humans, for there may be some undesirable side effects that make the vaccination hurt more than it helps.