Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?
An estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical , commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.
Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. Read more background…
Pro & Con Arguments
Pro 1 Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals. [ 9 ] Animal research has contributed to major advances in treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and more, and was instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] Read More
Pro 2 Animal testing is crucial to ensure that vaccines are safe. Scientists racing to develop a vaccine for coronavirus during the 2020 global pandemic need to test on genetically modified mice to ensure that the vaccine doesn’t make the virus worse. [ 133 ] [ 119 ] Nikolai Petrovsky, professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Australia, said testing a coronavirus vaccine on animals is “absolutely essential” and skipping that step would be “fraught with difficulty and danger.” [ 133 ] Researchers have to test extensively to prevent “vaccine enhancement,” a situation in which a vaccine actually makes the disease worse in some people. [ 141 ] Peter Hotez, Dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College, said, “The way you reduce that risk is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals.” [ 119 ] Read More
Pro 3 There is no adequate alternative to testing on a living, whole-body system. A living systems, 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. [ 9 ] Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs. [ 15 ] Conditions such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue cultures. [ 9 ] Even the most powerful supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of the human brain’s 100 billion interconnected nerve cells. [ 132 ] Read More
Pro 4 Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. [ 9 ] All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. [ 17 ] Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [ 18 ] Read More
Pro 5 Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human subjects before animal testing. [ 19 ] The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals. [ 20 ] Read More
Pro 6 Animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. Vaccines tested on animals have saved millions of animals that would otherwise have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [ 9 ] [ 21 ] Animal testing has been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. [ 13 ] [ 9 ] The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing to develop safe drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. [ 23 ] Read More
Pro 7 Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. [ 3 ] 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. Most major research institutions’ programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). [ 24 ] [ 25 ] Read More
Pro 8 Animals often make better research subjects than human beings because of their shorter life cycles. Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, which would be infeasible using human subjects. [ 29 ] [ 9 ] Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans. [ 30 ] Read More
Pro 9 Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals’ sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. Rachel Rubino, attending veterinarian and director of the animal facility at Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, said, “Most people who work with research animals love those animals… We want to give them the best lives possible, treat them humanely.” [ 28 ] At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s animal research facility, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily to socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a “toy rotation program” provides opportunities for play. [ 32 ] Read More
Pro 10 Animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians, and hunting would need to be outlawed. [ 33 ] [ 34 ] Read More
Pro 11 The vast majority of biologists and several of the largest biomedical and health organizations in the United States endorse animal testing. A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89% favored the use of animals in scientific research. [ 120 ] The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research. [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] Read More
Pro 12 Some cosmetics and health care products must be tested on animals to ensure their safety. American women use an average of 12 personal care products per day, so product safety is of great importance. [ 41 ] The US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests on cosmetics to “assure the safety of a product or ingredient.” [ 42 ] China requires that most cosmetics be tested on animals before they go on sale, so cosmetics companies must have their products tested on animals if they want distribution in one of the largest markets in the world. [ 43 ] Manufacturers of products such as hand sanitizer and insect repellent, which can protect people from Zika, malaria, and West Nile Virus, test on animals to meet legal requirements for putting these products on the market. [ 44 ] Read More
Con 1 Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.” [ 47 ] The US Department of Agriculture reported in Jan. 2020 that research facilities used over 300,000 animals in activities involving pain in just one year. [ 102 ] Read More
Con 2 Scientists are able to test vaccines on humans volunteers. Unlike animals used for research, humans are able to give consent to be used in testing and are a viable option when the need arises. [ 142 ] The COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic demonstrated that researchers can skip animal testing and go straight to observing how vaccines work in humans. One company working on a COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna Therapeutics, worked on developing a vaccine using new technology: instead of being based on a weakened form of the virus, it was developed using a synthetic copy of the COVID-19 genetic code. [ 143 ] Because the company didn’t take the traditional path of isolating live samples of a virus, it was able to fast-track the development process. [ 144 ] Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, said, “I don’t think proving this in an animal model is on the critical path to getting this to a clinical trial.” [ 145 ] Read More
Con 3 Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Other research methods such as in vitro testing (tests done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish) offer opportunities to reduce or replace animal testing. [ 15 ] Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting: a French company is working to bioprint a liver that can test the toxicity of a drug. [ 16 ] Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [ 15 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] The Environmental Protection Agency is so confident in alternatives that the agency intends to reduce chemical testing on mammals 30% by 2025 and end it altogether by 2035. [ 134 ] Humane Society International found that animal tests were more expensive than in vitro (testing performed outside of living organisms) in every scenario studied. [ 61 ] Read More
Con 4 Animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. [ 52 ] Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that “it’s very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human.” [ 53 ] Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because “we are not 70 kg rats.” [ 54 ] Read More
Con 5 Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. [ 5 ] Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. [ 109 ] [ 110 ] Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [ 55 ] [ 56 ] Read More
Con 6 Animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are ineffective on (or harmful to) animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. [ 105 ] Intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in treating sepsis in humans, but makes no difference to mice. [ 127 ] Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was “almost shelved” because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar. [ 105 ] A report on Slate.com stated that a “source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans.” [ 106 ] Read More
Con 7 Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by US law. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95% of the animals used in research. [ 28 ] The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 26 ] [ 102 ] [ 135 ] The US Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but they only include data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act. [ 135 ] Read More
Con 8 Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. [ 57 ] According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, MD, MPH, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. [ 58 ] A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) found that nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [ 59 ] [ 58 ] Read More
Con 9 There is increasing demand for cruelty-free products. More than one-third of women only buy cosmetics from brands that do not use animal testing. [ 136 ] The market for cruelty-free cosmetics (products not tested on animals) is estimated to reach $10 billion by 2024. [ 137 ] At least 37 countries have banned or restricted the sale of cosmetics with ingredients tested on animals, including nations in the European Union. [ 138 ] In the US, California became the first state to make it illegal to sell most cosmetics that underwent animal testing. [ 139 ] Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at biotech company MatTek, stated, “We can now create a model from human skin cells — keratinocytes — and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells — melanocytes — to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can’t do that on a mouse or a rabbit.” [ 140 ] Read More
Con 10 Most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates: “only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used.” [ 64 ] A 2017 study found further flaws in animal studies, including “incorrect data interpretation, unforeseen technical issues, incorrectly constituted (or absent) control groups, selective data reporting, inadequate or varying software systems, and blatant fraud.” [ 128 ] Read More
Con 11 The Animal Welfare Act has not succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse in research laboratories. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [ 68 ] Read More
Con 12 Medical breakthroughs involving animal research may still have been made without the use of animals. Devoting enough money and resources to animal-free alternatives could result in the same medical advances achieved through animal testing. [ 107 ] [ 129 ] [ 130 ] Humane Research Australia (HRA) reports that many discoveries made by non-animal methods were later verified by animal experiments, “giving false credit” to animal use. [ 130 ] Read More
Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)
ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA
Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]
© 2022 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved
- ACLU- Good or Bad?
- Alternative Energy vs. Fossil Fuels
- Animal Testing
- Banned Books
- Big Three Auto Bailout
- Born Gay? – Origins of Sexual Orientation
- Bottled Water Ban
- Cell Phone Radiation
- Churches and Taxes
- Climate Change
- College Education Worth It?
- College Football Playoffs
- Concealed Handguns
- Corporal Punishment
- Corporate Tax Rate & Jobs
- Cuba Embargo
- D.A.R.E – Good or Bad?
- Daylight Savings Time
- Death Penalty
- Drinking Age – Lower It?
- Drone Strikes Overseas
- Drug Use in Sports
- Electoral College
- Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide
- Felon Voting
- Fighting in Hockey
- Gay Marriage
- Gold Standard
- Golf – Is It a Sport?
- Gun Control
- Illegal Immigration
- Insider Trading by Congress
- Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
- Medical Marijuana
- Milk – Is It Healthy?
- Minimum Wage
- National Anthem Protests
- Net Neutrality
- Obesity a Disease?
- Police Body Cameras
- President Ronald Reagan
- Presidential Election, 2008
- Presidental Election, 2012
- Presidential Election, 2016
- Prostitution – Legalize?
- Recreational Marijuana
- Right to Health Care?
- Sanctuary Cities
- Santa Monica Local Elections, 2014
- School Uniforms
- School Vouchers
- Social Media
- Social Security Privatization
- Standardized Tests
- Student Loan Debt
- Tablets vs. Textbooks
- Teacher Tenure
- Under God in the Pledge
- Universal Basic Income
- Us-Iraq War
- Vaccines for Kids
- Video Games and Violence
- Voting Machines
- WTC Muslim Center
- Medical Marijuana – Should Marijuana Be a Medical Option?
- Gun Control – Should More Gun Control Laws Be Enacted?
- Animal Testing – Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?
- Death Penalty – Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?
- Recreational Marijuana – Should Recreational Marijuana Be Legal?
- School Uniforms – Should Students Have to Wear School Uniforms?
- Drinking Age – Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?
- Social Media – Are Social Networking Sites Good for Our Society?
- Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide – Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?
- Illegal Immigration – What Are the Solutions to Illegal Immigration in America?
- Watch Our Videos
- Teachers’ Corner
- Readers’ Comments
- Who Uses ProCon.org?
- Weekly Tidbits
- Archived Topics
- Donors & Sponsors
- ProCon.org Events
- Suggest a Topic
- Share on Social Media
- Volunteers / Interns
Cite This Page
ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):
[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]
[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]
Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay
Animal testing: introduction, animal testing: debatable questions, animal testing: conclusion.
We will write a custom Essay on Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay specifically for you for only $11.00 $9.35/page
807 certified writers online
Animal testing denotes the use of animals in medical experiments to unveil the potency, safety, toxicity, and viability of developed drugs. Concurrently, the phenomenon also applies to other biological experiments, which utilize animals as specimens. The method incorporates the administration of pharmaceutical compounds into biological systems (test animals).
This usually occurs for scientific purposes and medical developments. The process is debatable and has been disputed by animal activists, religious groups, and ethical communities who believe that the trend is immoral and inappropriate since animals cannot be compared with human beings (Panza & Potthast, 2010).
Animal testing usually involve vertebrates like rodents, cats, dogs, birds, and Guinea pigs among others. Since this is a disputable phenomenon, where one can argue for or against the act, this paper supports the aspects of animal testing with bountiful reasons based on its viability in investigating pharmacological compounds. Without animal testing, numerous drugs, which currently help the humankind, could have missed.
Since human beings cannot commence crude pharmaceutical investigations as test specimens, using test animals is significant in this context. It is advisable to execute scientific investigations elsewhere before introducing them into human beings. It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations and scientific discoveries.
With regard to animal testing, debatable questions emerge. In this paper, “Should animal testing be abandoned due to ethical claims surrounding it?” forms the debated question. This question tries to unveil whether it is viable for biologists and medical scientists to cease from using animals for experimental investigations.
Despite the conventional use of these animals in numerous scientific experiments, it is still debatable on their viability and potency. Arguably, the animal testing phenomenon should continue with regard to scientific investigations.
The need for efficacy, safety, novelty, and certainty in the realms of drug-use require thorough investigative experiments, which can only materialize when test animals are incorporated. Firstly, some animal have systems that resemble those of human beings; thus, the ability to use such animals give a broader chance of executing an elaborate experimental investigation.
Using animals as representative of humans is a critical phenomenon when scrutinized critically. There are numerous individuals who have disputed this claim as stated in the research question. The desire to continue with the animal testing phenomenon has infuriated numerous activists who are against it (Panza & Potthast, 2010).
Nonetheless, it is evident and appropriate that this phenomenon should continue for further discoveries to be realized. It is questionable how further medical research will occur and how this will materialize without the use of test animals. This is an impossible phenomenon, which demands those who are arguing against animal testing to reconsider their stands.
Another issue is that human beings cannot be used as experimental animals. The drugs administered into humans must be of some quality, minimized toxicity, viable to use, potent, safe, and effective. This means that they have been investigated and approved by the concerned bodies after scientific investigations. If animal testing will be abandoned, no effective experimentation will occur on biological vessels.
Evidently, invitro (using experimental tubes) experimentations are slow and incomprehensive. This means that scientific investigations will delay and sometimes results might not occur. It is vital to consider that animal testing has helped significantly since its inception several decades ago. It has remained a viable, trusted, and considerable experimental design for pharmaceutical products and other scientific investigations.
Harrison & Hester (2006), which identifies alternative of animal testing, agrees that attaining an alternative of this trend is daunting and minimally achievable. Scientific considerations support this trend since there are limited alternatives to replace the method comprehensively (Harrison & Hester, 2006).
Those who are against animal testing claim that animals are not human beings and equating the two is inconsiderable. Evidently, animal are not exact copies of humans. There are numerous differences noticeable amidst the two factions. Additionally, they argue that what works best in a guinea pig (an experimental animal), might not exactly perform in humans.
The two factions (humans and test animals) are different hence the assumption that they can emulate each other is misled. Notably, this argument is understandable; however, as the situation stands, it is still appropriate to conduct animal testing to help in research investigations. Humans can hardly be used for crude or undeveloped researches as the ones done with test animals. This means that animal testing is still the best option.
According to Schmidt (2001), which discusses the aspects of animal testing, recognizes that it is important to infer that what is inconsumable for test animals is similarly consumable for humans. It is possible to note the adverse effects of drugs with animals, make appropriate changes in the composition of the tested drug, and later emerge with effective, safe, and potent compound worth human utilization.
Watson (2009), which describes the ethical issues related to animal testing, argues that some ethical claims behind the animal testing are baseless when compared to human lives saved daily due to animal testing executed to investigate proper and effective drugs. A mere claim that it is immoral to inject or administer unworthy compounds into an innocent animal while doing research is superfluous. This simply means that those who are against animal testing hardly want researches to be done using animals.
This is good and considerable; however, these very people hardly provide viable alternatives that can work better compared to the conventional animal testing provisions. Besides, they are also among those who gain from the findings and results achieved from such investigations. Evidently, almost all drugs currently used in the world at one point passed through animal testing to unveil their viability, safety, efficacy, toxicity levels, and other viable provisions demanded in this context.
Concurrently, it is inappropriate to abandon animal testing as claimed by the activists. The current discoveries on genetics, reproduction, developmental biology, and study of behaviors among others could have not materialized minus animal testing.
Additionally, there are other viable provisions that characterize the phenomenon besides the known pharmaceutical investigations which usually occur using test animals as stipulated before. In these mentioned fields, there are still considerable knowledge gaps that will necessitate further application of animal testing in order to unveil additional information.
This phenomenon can hardly occur minus animal testing since there will be no specimens for further research. The ethical claims fronted by the mentioned activists should cease from hindering further investigations (Watson, 2009). It is evident that discoveries made from animal testing are numerous and helpful to the human race as indicated earlier. The need for more investigations and application of animal testing will continue to exist following its viability, applicability, and reliability in the aspects of research.
The viewpoint that animals equally have moral rights is evident; however, it is disputable in this context since it acts as a hindrance to lucrative investigations and discoveries that are helpful to the humankind. Hayhurst (2000), which debates on animal rights, denotes that individuals who perceive animal as having rights are equally accurate in their opinions; nonetheless, they should also consider the merits of animal testing to their lives and beyond.
This relates to the ethical arguments posted with regard to this topic. It forms the center of argument from various people. It is crucial to denote that animal testing has numerous provisions worth noting in varying contexts. This relates to its viability and potency in unveiling the less investigated claims with regard to life. According to various sources, some arguments regarding the aspects of animal testing are invalid and misleading (Hayhurst, 2000). They simply emerge from undue compassion for animals.
This contributes to why this paper agrees with the continuity of animal testing. Precisely, its merits surpass its baseless flaws numerous times. It is recommendable to scrutinize these arguments before they derail the realities that encompass a given matter. It is crucial to consider such provisions following their viability in this context.
Additionally, those who argue against animal testing claim that such animals lack the capacity to express themselves hence can hardly show their pain, dissatisfaction, and suffering.
This is a critical claim; however, it is not enough to support the ban against animal testing. Conversely, scientists, medics, and biologists who use such animals apply moral aspects to their undertakings; hence, will barely intend to harm such experimental animals. Since such ethical observations are carried out within the mentioned experimental testing, it is considerable to continue with the animal testing phenomenon. Adjusting the conditions of these tests might equally help in upholding the ethical demands.
Another argument is that animal testing simplifies and speeds the experimental designs meant to make discoveries. This could have not been achievable minus such experimental trends. Testing developed research products on animals elicit the desired results with promptness. It is daunting and time consuming to develop therapeutic and diagnostic compounds from human beings. This relates to the aspects of delay claimed earlier.
Scientists will not be able to attain their demands in time. This might discourage them from continuing with investigations. Since the use of animal testing provides instant results, its application is widespread, applicable, and viable in numerous contexts. The aspects of safety indicated earlier in these claims equally contribute to the applicability of animal testing. It is improper to execute unsafe experiments or unverified drugs on humans.
The repercussions might be devastating than when it was applied on test animals (Schmidt, 2001). For example, developments and investigations on HIV drugs cannot occur on humans at their initial stages. It is advisable to develop them through animal testing before rendering them usable by humans. It is possible to adjust the composition of the given compound to unveil its viable concentrations. Emerging with instant results supports the application of animal testing and contributes massively in this context.
Animal testing is a helpful phenomenon in biological, medical, and other scientific investigations demanding its incorporation. The phenomenon is helpful, viable, and should be embraced despite the opposing opinions. Animal testing helps in developing effective, safe, viable, qualitative, and less toxic drugs. Following the merits of animal testing, its application and advancements should continue while observing ethical concerns.
Harrison, R. & Hester, R. (2006). Alternatives to Animal Testing . Ohio, OH: Cengage Learning.
Hayhurst, C. (2000). Animal testing: The animal rights debate . New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.
Panza, C. & Potthast, A. (2010). Ethics For Dummies . Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons
Schmidt, A. (2001). Animal testing in infectiology . Basel: Karger.
Watson, S. (2009). Animal testing: Issues and ethics . New York, NY: Rosen Pub.
Need a custom Essay sample written from scratch by professional specifically for you?
- Chicago (N-B)
- Chicago (A-D)
IvyPanda. (2022, June 19). Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/
IvyPanda. (2022, June 19). Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/
"Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 19 June 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.
1. IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." June 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.
IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." June 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.
IvyPanda . 2022. "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." June 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.
IvyPanda . (2022) 'Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay'. 19 June.
- Argumentative Essay Writing
- An Argumentative Essay: How to Write
- Writing Argumentative Essay With Computer Aided Formulation
- Argumentative Paper on the Benefits of Free Range Livestock on Consumer Health Rather than Corn-Fed Livestock
- Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay
- Pros and Cons of Abortion to the Society Argumentative Essay
- Should Video Games Be Considered a Sport? Argumentative Essay
- Discussion Post Over Dunlap’s Argumentative Essay
- Enhancement Drugs in Sports Should Be Banned: An Argumentative Paper
- Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty
- Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation
- Burmese Pythons
- Grass Fed versus Grain and Corn Fed Animals
- Use of Animals in Biological Testing
- The Impact of Burmese Pythons on Florida’s Native Biodiversity
Last Updated 20 Apr 2022
Argumentative essay on animal testing
On July 8th, 2016, the Los Angeles Times Magazine wrote an editorial called “Why Test Chemicals On Animals If We Don't Have To?”. The Times Editorial Board has given the audience an excellent argument, because this article presents an alternative way to stop harming animals while maintaining successful lab results. Those who opppose animal testing are concerned about the animals getting harmed in the process. The Board has given the audience a very clear thesis “This new regulatory philosophy is not just humane; it is also smart, prudent and a reflection of the remarkable advances in chemical testing that are producing better results than those obtained by torturous testing over the years, guinea pigs, rats and mice.” (Par.1). The Board gives great evidence and realistic alternatives to stop harming animals.
The author begins by explaining safer, alternative methods for animal testing; a law rewritten in 2016 mandates the EPA to develop and explore these. In addition, they also want to share their knowledge with other labs to make animal testing safer everywhere. The changes they want to make during testing on animals are protected from pain and death. Furthermore, the goal is to dramatically reduce the use of animals in the process of testing chemicals. They have found more efficient and more accurate ways to test chemicals in the lab without harming animals; this is also applicable to human safety.
This article states their argument but there is no evidence that supports any of their claims, which shows the information is not validated. The main points given are supported by the thesis. The Board does give detailed explanations on supporting humane treatment and more effective animal testing. The detailed explanations of the authors are convincing throughout the article because they provide the results of safer animal tests that are now available. This has worked to stop most people's arguments who are pro animal testing. “These days, researchers can grow human skin cells in vitro test the chemicals on them. The results are more relevant to human safety since they were tested on human cells, not rabbits. Similarly, eye irritation tests don't require a live animal’s eyes anymore” (Par. 5). The conclusion is effective because it explains how the alternative way has worked.
Order custom essay Argumentative essay on animal testing with free plagiarism report
Logos are used throughout this editorial to persuade the audience by reason and logic. They want to share their findings with other labs so animal abuse can be reduced as a whole. “The changes in the EPA guidelines have been well received not only by animal welfare organizations but also by the chemical industry. And the industry officials have said that they are willing to share the technology involved in alternative testing with each other” (Par.4). This shows a colbative effort to make animal testing safe everywhere. The article did a great job at persuading the audience with examples in the article. The only negative is that the Board did not include any sources. While the article is encouraging to animal lovers and is ideal for people who work in labs, it is questionable due to its lack of sources.
The board does not establish authority and does not remain credible because the information stated in the article has no evidence with no sources which makes the authors untrustworthy. Their attitude throughout the article is professional, calm and informative. “The new law revamps the Toxic Substances Control Act, which covers chemicals found in paints and thinners, wood varnish, plastics, and furniture, among other products.
It instructs the EPA administrator to “reduce and replace” the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemicals by encouraging and facilitating alternative methods.” (Par.2). This quote is very informative but lacks sources which makes the board questionable. The authors are biased;“But it is also being praised by animal welfare advocates for a landmark provision that could reduce dramatically the use of animals in the process of testing animal safer” (Par.1). The article shows emotion by explaining what happens to the animals before the safer changes were made.
“But now that our safety can be protected without inflicting pain or death on an animal-whether rabbit or rat- continuing to do these tests would simply be cruel and inhumane” (Par.3). But, Patidar showed more emotion in her article, “Every year, sea full of experimental animals is used all over the world. The tenderness, grief and death experienced by the animals during experiments have been a debating issue for a long time.” (Patidar 79). Which is a perfect example of pathos because they show the emotional side of animal testing and how the animals get killed.
My initial understanding of the topic was that they are trying to make animal testing humane for animals, while also wanting to share their knowledge with other labs to make testing safe everywhere. The authors gave a decent argument, but they only gave one alternative solution with no evidence. Scholars approach this subject by finding safer ways to test animals without hurting them but they also include their findings from the opposing side of the argument with sources. The scholars are more convincing than the Board because the scholars provide several alternatives while this article has one. I agree with this article because they are making an effort to stop animal testing; they are not being abused or killed. But, they only have an alternative for some of the animals which means there are still some animals being abused by testing.
“There remain some areas of safety testing for which there is no alternative other than to test on animals” (par.6). May goes more in depth on how why there is no replacement for animal testing at this time, “Currently, there is still a place for animal testing within the toxicty setting, as it has a well-documented history and provides the opportunity to study the entire organism. However, many alternative in vitry methods are now avaUable (sic) and in devlopment, and, while not currently a complete replacement for animal testing, can be used prior to, and in some cases to complement, existing techniques” (May et al. 160). It is upsetting how not all animals are saved from the abuse of testing at this time.
For example in the article written by Archibald, it was stated that, “Before a drug is tested on humans, there should be persuasive evidence that it is safe and effective. No method, neither animal, human nor test-tube, can predict the reactions of every patient with 100 per cent (sic) accuracy”(Archibald 15). Since animals do not consent to testing they should find a way to not need animals for labs. I do feel the same after critically reading and evaluating the article, every area of animal testing should be safe or stopped completly. Overall, the article was effective because it reaches its audience and it communicates how scientisist are successfuly making animal testing safer; it reveals how reasearchers no longer need certain animals anymore. This further demonstrates how labs are getting closer to not needing animals for testing products in the future. The Board also entertains the audience on the viable alternatives. Although “Why Test Animals If We Don’t Have To” was a good read, the authors should have added sources to make themselves more trustworthy
- Archibald, Kathy. “Animal Testing: Science or Fiction?” The Ecologist, vol.35,no 4, May 2005, pp14-17. Proquest, http://libproxy.wc.edu:2104/docview/234925491?accountid=7142 Accessed 30 Oct. 2019.
- May, J. E., et al. “Toxicity testing: The search for an in vitro alternative to animal testing.” British Journal of Biomedical Science, vol. 66, no 3, 2009, pp. 160-65. Proquest http://libproxy.wc.edu:2104/docview/227920508?accountid=7142. Accessed 30 Oct. 2019.
- Patidar, Archana, et al. “3D Printing Technology: An Alternative of Animal Testing.” International Journal of Pharmacy & Life Sciences, vol.7, no.9, Sept. 2016, p.79. EBSCOhost,search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=118973252&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 1 Nov. 2019
- “Why Test Animals If We Don’t Have To?.” Los Angeles Times 18 July 2016, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-epa-animal-testing-20160710-snap-story.html Accessed 3 Oct.. 2019
This essay was written by a fellow student. You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need cite it.
Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses
Did you know that we have over 70,000 essays on 3,000 topics in our database?
Cite this page
Explore how the human body functions as one unit in harmony in order to life
Argumentative essay on animal testing. (2020, Aug 05). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/argumentative-essay-on-animal-testing/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
More related Essays
Didn`t find the right sample?
Animal testing is the act of using non-uman animals in research, development projects or scientific experiments. Hundreds of millions of animals are being used annually for scientific research, but because.
ECPI University Every year millions of animals are subjected to horrible unethical experimentations in order to advance medical science. Dogs, cats, monkeys, mice, and other animals are kept in dark.
Many years ago, people follow particular traditions that involves animal sacrifice. According to biblical history, animals were often killed to use as sacrifices to God. In Genesis, Abraham sacrificed a.
Testing on Animals is Morally Wrong In today’s world, large corporations seem to have decided that animal testing is an acceptable way to produce products that are safe for human.
Now ladies and gentlemen, I would like you guys to have a think about this, without animal research, how long would it take for us to have a breakthrough in.
Is Animal Testing Wrong? Would you want to put your best four legged friend through torture to find out if something, such as lipstick, would okay for humans? I know,.
When shopping at a store, no one ever thinks when he or she buys makeup, cleaning products, deodorant or lotion, that it has potentially hurt an innocent animal. In fact,.
Animal Testing People argue that animal testing kills to many animals. 20 million animals are used for animal testing each year. 90 percent of them are rodents such as rats.
- Animal Ethics
- Government Policies
- Gun Control
- Experiments on Animals
- International Relations
- Public Sector
- Wild Animals
- National Security
Save time and let our verified experts help you.
- Pay For Essay
- Write My Essay
- Homework Writing Help
- Essay Editing Service
- Thesis Writing Help
- Write My College Essay
- Do My Essay
- Term Paper Writing Service
- Coursework Writing Service
- Write My Research Paper
- Assignment Writing Help
- Essay Writing Help
- Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
- EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
- Writing Guides
Animal Testing (Argumentative Essay Sample)
New medical treatments and commercial products are tested in animal first to verify the levels of toxicity of the product and also their safety levels before these products are finally tested on humans. Animals have been used for quite some time for biomedical respect that can be traced back during the Greek scientist like Aristotle period. Both scientists conducted medical experiments on live animals. Various scientists determined to improve the field of medicine conduct medical experiments using specific animals like rats or monkeys to develop an in-depth understanding of pathology and pharmacology effect of the drugs. The drugs can only be tested on humans after undergoing a series of tests on animals.
In the nineteenth-century Arab physicians known as Zuhr Ibn conducted several animal researches to assess the surgical procedures that could be applicable in humans. Since then, animal testing is seen to be the most efficient way to developing new drugs and products, policy makers are yet to be convinced that using animal for testing causes serious harm more to animals.
Other scientists and animal welfare groups have opposed such practice terming it as inhumane and should be banned. Despite numerous opposing opinions about animal testing, the practice is still alive in the 21 century in laboratories. Animal testing is used in education and applied in biomedical research. There are many animal testing being carried out even though various interest groups condemning such acts. These groups advocate for alternative testing methods to prohibit animal testing. Several animal welfare organizations have increased the levels of awareness about alternative testing without using animals. They argue that testing animals does not yield accurate results compared to human application; therefore, there is no need to involve animals in testing drugs or products.
Use of animals for medical purposes is seen to be necessary. Animal research and development usually begin their trials using rats. If the tests are successful, further tests are done on monkeys before using human beings. For testing, such tiered rounds are important because it reduces the level of error and any negative side effects. Scientist argues that animal testing has saved many lives and other alternatives might not produce accurate results like animal tests. The use of animal for research is an old concept that continued to be debated.
Medical experts argue that animals are not intentionally harmed; they are well taken care of and treated well. There are regulations for animal testing that limits the misuse of animal during research. However, animal welfare organizations claim that it is unnecessary to use animal for testing and the process needs to be stopped because it is inhuman and cruel. In conclusion, using animals for medical research is ethical and useful because it contributes to scientific development to improve human health. Despite the benefits of animal testing, some of the animal welfare organizations concerns need to be addressed with adequate regulations being enacted to ensure that animals are treated humanely.
Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing
Argumentative Essays on Animal Testing
Arguments aganist using animals in experiments and testing, reasons to stop animal testing, the reasons why animal testing should be stopped, discussion whether animals testing is necessary, an argument favoring the use of animals in testing and the benefits it has brought, animal testing in modern world, pros and cons of animal testing: the conflicting debate, persuasive essay against animal testing practice, discussion: should animals be used for scientific research, the arguments concerning animal testing, why animal testing should be viewed as beneficial, saving the animals: alternative ways to test products, discussion on whether scientists should be allowed to test products on animals, the arguments why we should not test on animals, reasons why animal testing should be forbidden, why we should not continue test on animals, arguments for the reduction of animal testing, the problem of human cruelty to animals, how animal testing benefits us from diseases, the appeal to stop the cruel and unnecessary animal testing, animal testing and alternatives for developing cruelty-free makeup, animals should not be a part of scientific research, worldwide problem of animal testing, global problem of animal testing, analysis of the perspectives in support for animal testing and against it, animal testing in the united states, animal testing in the world, arguments for eliminating the use of animal testing, humane cosmetics: abolishing animal testing on cosmetics in america, review on the animal testing, feeling stressed about your essay.
Get professional help in 5 minutes
Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the variables that affect the behavior or biological system under study.
The earliest references to animal testing are found in the writings of the Greeks in the 2nd and 4th centuries BC. Aristotle and Erasistratus were among the first to perform experiments on living animals.
Examples of applied research include testing disease treatments, breeding, defense research, and toxicology, including cosmetics testing. In education, animal testing is sometimes a component of biology or psychology courses. The practice is regulated to varying degrees in different countries.
Each year, more than 110 million animals are killed in U.S. laboratories. 95% of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials. Labs that use mice, rats, birds, reptiles and amphibians are exempted from the minimal protections under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Currently, 52% of U.S. adults oppose the use of animals in scientific research.
1. Abbott, A. (2005). Animal testing: more than a cosmetic change. Nature, 438(7065), 144-147. (https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA185466349&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00280836&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7E513ffe31) 2. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096 Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229. 3. Hajar, R. (2011). Animal testing and medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/ Heart views: the official journal of the Gulf Heart Association, 12(1), 42. 4. Bottini, A. A., & Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought… on the economics of animal testing. ALTEX-Alternatives to animal experimentation, 26(1), 3-16. (https://www.altex.org/index.php/altex/article/view/633) 5. Valappil, S. P., Misra, S. K., Boccaccini, A. R., & Roy, I. (2006). Biomedical applications of polyhydroxyalkanoates, an overview of animal testing and in vivo responses. Expert Review of Medical Devices, 3(6), 853-868. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1586/174344126.96.36.1993) 6. File, S. E., Lippa, A. S., Beer, B., & Lippa, M. T. (2004). Animal tests of anxiety. Current protocols in neuroscience, 26(1), 8-3. (https://currentprotocols.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0471142301.ns0803s26) 7. Madden, J. C., Enoch, S. J., Paini, A., & Cronin, M. T. (2020). A review of in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing: principles, resources and applications. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, 48(4), 146-172. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0261192920965977) 8. Donnellan, L. (2006). Animal testing in cosmetics: recent developments in the European Union and the United States. Animal L., 13, 251. (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/anim13&div=18&id=&page=)
Top 10 Similar Topics
- Gun Violence
- Gender Equality
- Pro Choice (Abortion)
- Women's Rights
- I Have a Dream
- Pro Life (Abortion)
- Civil Disobedience
- Racial Profiling
We can help you get a better grade and deliver your task on time!
- Instructions Followed To The Letter
- Deadlines Met At Every Stage
- Unique And Plagiarism Free
1. 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish. [ 1] [ 2] [ 3] 2. 89% of scientists surveyed by the Pew Research Center were in favor of animal testing for scientific research. [ 120]
Another argument is that animal testing simplifies and speeds the experimental designs meant to make discoveries. This could have not been achievable minus such experimental trends. Testing developed research products on animals elicit the desired results with promptness.
The Times Editorial Board has given the audience an excellent argument, because this article presents an alternative way to stop harming animals while maintaining successful lab results. Those who opppose animal testing are concerned about the animals getting harmed in the process.
The term animal testing is the process of subjecting animal to clinical trials before conducting human trials. Animal testing involves developing an experiment to determine the effectiveness of certain drugs or product’s efficacy. Each year, more than 26 million animals in the US are used for experiments.
Animal testing is the procedure of using non-human animals to control changes that may affect biological systems or behaviors in experiments. Because animals and humans have similar properties, the process of animal testing is done for research to benefit humanity, and for that reason, it... Animal Testing Topics: