I disagree with K. Archibald’s opinion of banning animal testing because every day, many people are saved from diseases and death because of great medical treatments and drugs we have. This achievement would not be achievable without animal testing. In spite of these achievements, some of us are calling for animal testing to be banned because animals are not like human and there is no point comparing us to them.
In addition, K. Archibald is calling to test new drugs on people rather than animals. I think it would be heartless to test new drugs on people and if we test new drugs on people, it will take longer to see any effects. In addition, other alternative methods of testing will not give us accurate results and until we have a better system, we must use animal testing.
Before we highlight the public concerns about animal tests, let us have a quick look at how animal testing in used in the UK. Nowadays, about 2.78 million animals are used as part of animal research in the UK each year. Most of the animal research used is pet species such as dogs and cats. Cats and dogs make up 0.3% of the total number of animals used each year. This number is increasing, as more researches are required to treat diseases. Other animals used in labs are insects such as fruit flies and worms and they are used in very large numbers. The majority of animals in laboratories are used for genetic manipulation, surgical intervention or injection of foreign substances.
Animal experiments are strongly controlled in the UK. Every scientist must hold a Home Office Licence to test drugs on animals. Every scientific project is reviewed by a vet; an ethics committee and finally the Home Office which may take several months before any experimentation starts to take place.
While I was doing my research, I discovered that an animal experimenting was common in the UK. It was the key to the development of the field of human medicine.
Here is a list of the average number of operations performed in the UK in a year:
• 3,000,000 operations under general anaesthetic
• 90,000 cataract operations
• 60,000 joint replacements
• 13,000 coronary bypasses
• 10,000 pacemakers implanted
• 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements
• 4,000 heart defects corrected
• 2,500 corneal transplants
• 2,000 kidney transplants
• 400 heart/lung transplants
The above information is from Huntingdon Life Sciences’ website which can be found at
None of these operations or the techniques used during them would have been possible without previous animal research. The contribution that animals have made to human wellbeing is immense.
I looked at some websites to find out the public concerns about animal testing. I believe there is significant worry about the use of animals in scientific research and it is often simplistic to lose sight of the advantages that have been made through this scientific research with animals. One of the public concerns is how animals can be compared to human in medical research. To make it clearer, animals react in a different way to some drugs than humans do; also, the stress that animals have can make them suffer whilst in a laboratory. As a result the experiment’s results will be pointless. This could not only mislead researchers but even contribute to illnesses or deaths by failing to predict any toxic effect on drugs. As mentioned previously, most animals in laboratories are used for genetic manipulation, surgical intervention or injection of foreign substances. Researchers create solutions from the experiments and familiarize them to human conditions. Unfortunately, these cannot always be compared with the human condition thus creating trouble. I think this is the reason why many American people died of having a heart attack or strokes because of taking Vioxx.
There is no doubt that animal tests cannot foresee with complete conviction what will occur in humans, nor are they expected to. Animal researches allow researchers to obtain as close as possible to the situation in humans before testing an experimental medicine in human. Those against the use of animal testing claim that it is inhumane to use animals in experiments. I disagree completely. It would be much more inhumane to test new drugs on children or adults. Even if it were possible, it would also take much longer to see potential effects, because of the length of time we live compared to laboratory animals such as rats or rabbits.
Animal experimentation raises big questions and provides no simple answers. After much consideration, my own personal position can be summarised by saying that some experiments are clearly justified, whilst others are clearly not. This leaves a significant section where I am still not sure.
