Against Animal Testing
Testing on animals has been in debate from a long time. There is a big problem in the United States with animal testing: before researchers test pharmaceuticals in human clinical trials, they test them in animals to determine toxicity, dosing, and efficacy. It is hard to decide what rights animals have, and this is the reason for debate. Who are we to decide what is best or worst for the animal? Some believe that the test results are unreliable and obsolete; others believe animal testing is necessary to further medical research. I believe that animal testing is wrong because animals have certain rights as living creatures. I also believe there are practical and theoretical reasons why animal testing should not be done. Some possible solutions to this problem are different methods or current methods. One of the main reasons I am against animal testing is because animals have no voice; an animal cannot tell you to stop hurting them or that they object to what you are doing. Many companies that test on animals are not humane. A lot of tests are hurtful to the animals. This composes good question: do animals have rights? Animals are defenseless; therefore they look to us for support. Some believe animals should not have rights because they lack our intelligence and cannot become serving members of society. The fact that animals do not have our mental capabilities should mean that we should take more care of them, like babies. They cannot fend for themselves therefore we need to fend for them. What makes us human anyway, is it our feelings? Animals are capable of feelings, as are humans. I just don’t think it is fair to test on someone that has no say. About 5 percent of all animal deaths by human beings result from animal testing, however, the number killed which is around 500 million is not inconsiderable. Whether or not you agree with animal testing you must agree that 500 million animal deaths a year from animal testing is ridiculous. With all the alternative methods there is no reason why so many animals should die each year. Many believe that it is for a good cause because some of the tests benefit human beings. I disagree; a lot of the tests, which are done on animals, can be done on computers or on lower organisms such as bacteria. Moreover, there are physical and physiological differences between animals and humans therefore experiments are unreliable- not to mention damaging to animals. Differences between the infinitely complex biological systems of different species of animals mean that data gained from experiments on nonhumans are an unreliable and dangerous guide to the human condition. A horrible outcome could arise if false results are obtained. If a drug is approved because it wasn’t harmful to a chimpanzee for example, it could still be harmful to humans.
Thankfully there are many solutions to animal testing. There are in-vitro methods, which are in an artificial environment outside the living organism. Computer simulation of experiments is also a reliable source. Another alternative to animal testing is building databases of tests to avoid duplication. Alternative methods are becoming more and more prevalent. Alternative methods are more cost effective, better predictors of human injury, produce far quicker results, and do not involve animal cruelty. Although replacement is the only animal free method, I believe that refinement and reduction are steps in the right direction. Some believe that testing on animals is the only way to get concrete results. Many have been proven to have the same results as animal tests. Another belief is that certain labs breed animals specifically for the product tests. I agree that it happens, however I don’t believe it is right. Whether or not their whole lives are spent in a cage, or a test tube, doesn’t make the value of their lives any less. Another reason why people seem to agree with animal research is because a majority of the tests are