Animal experimentation has been and will continue to be a source in scientific research. Similarities between animals and humans allow for researchers to provide safer drugs and new treatments for diseases. (Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR), 2008). Animal experiments have provided many positive outcomes in medical advancements that save human and animal lives. However, many people in today’s society have an emotional attachment to animals which fuels opposition to animal experimentation. But anyone concerned for human life must unequivocally endorse the rightness of using animals in medical research (Epstein, 2005). Studies using animals have been a practice and debated for hundreds of years. Scientists and medical researchers support animal testing which is necessary for medical advancements to treat disease. To preserve human life, animal experimentations will continue to play a vital role for medical testing in the introduction of new medications, toxicity testing and improved medical procedures.
Proponents of animal testing know that the new medicines we have today would not have been possible without the use of animals for testing. The studies being performed are to help humans and animals in the pursuit of a more comfortable and longer life. “Consumers demand and have a right to expect that the products they depend upon are safe if used properly” (Partners in Research (PIR), 2009). Everyday illnesses such as migraines, diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure, blocked arteries and simple infections are treated with medications that are first tested on animals. In addition, vaccines which were also developed through animal testing have been effective in preventing disease to both animals and humans. Vaccines for animals have aided in controlling rabies, parvovirus, distemper and heartworms which has improved their health and lives. Humans have been safeguarded against viruses such as polio, influenza and smallpox with the use of immunizations that were tested on animals. FBR (2008) indicates, “Polio virus, the causative agent of paralytic poliomyelitis, essentially has been wiped out in North America” Animal activists are appalled that such testing is being performed on animals. Wolff stated, “In many cases, animal studies do not just hurt animals and waste money; they harm and kill people, too” (Wolff, 2009). In some medication studies, animals were given doses that they had successfully recovered from, but the same medication given to humans in a ratio dose caused severe side effects and fatal results in humans.
Scientists also perform tolerance to toxicity levels in animals. An animal’s reaction to toxic levels of chemicals helps in determining how a child’s system would also react. The data derived from this type of testing helps determine poisoning levels for humans. Epstein states, “Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing were prohibited” (Epstein, 2009). Parents of children that may get into household cleaning items or chemicals in the garage are given advice from poison hotlines to prevent side effects and death of children. The United States Department of Agriculture regularly inspects animal experimentation labs across the country to verify the well-being of the animals. Opponents claim that many of the toxicity studies cause pain and distress for the animals, and sometimes, may even result in death. With this in mind, animal activist’s often raise the point of animal cruelty. As Mayo (2009) states, “The whole thing is evil” (cited in “Animal Experimentation," 2009). In contrast, lab animals are often treated with the best care due to the value they provide for researchers. If animals are in pain and suffering the results of the testing procedures would be skewed. Therefore, a distressed animal is a poor test subject” (PIR, 2008). Cruelty is defined as a purpose to punish, unlike animal experimentation which is used to serve human longevity. Though many people consider