The Controversy Of Animal Testing
The Controversy Of Animal Testing
Animal testing is one of the most controversial issues of humanity facing our world today. Many types of drugs, cosmetics and chemicals are tested on animals before there are used by us humans to try and ensure that they are safe. When it comes to discussing the ethics of animal testing, viewpoints clash, as some feel that experiments on animals are simply horrible, cruel and inhumane, while others declare that animal testing is beneficial to the human race. Exploration of the pros and cons of animal testing must eventually conclude with the realization that it may be unpleasant but it is essential.
Many people would say that injecting diseased cells or rubbing shampoo into an animal's eyes is just mercilessly cruel, but we must stop and think about the benefits animal testing provides to our society. By the end of the year 2000, over 36 million people were living in our world, infected with AIDS. However, right now, scientists are using animals to help find a cure for AIDS, just like they found cures for Polio and Rubella in the past. Our life spans have increased by 28 years because of animal testing, and chemotherapy for cancer patients also tested on animals has saved a significant number of lives.
A recent study early in 2001 showed that the majority of UK citizens support tests on animals. In addition, it revealed that there was a large difference in opinion between age groups, and the older the voters, the more supporters of animal testing there were. Almost half of the younger generation supported an end to animal testing, even for medicines that may prove beneficial for human consumption. This may reveal a naïve enthusiasm for saving a few animals at the expense of many humans.
One of the main reasons why we test on animals is to save human life. If millions of humans weren't dying from deathly diseases each year, there wouldn't be such a great need to test on animals in the first place. Animals are being killed everyday, not just through animal testing, but also for food and other luxuries. So why aren't almost 50% of young people in the UK against eating meat? Animals reproduce quickly and in large numbers, and this is benefiting research on heredity and genetics. There aren't any alternatives to testing on animals which have ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
One of the main reasons why we test on animals is to save human life. If millions of humans weren't dying from deathly diseases each year, there wouldn't be such a great need to test on animals in the first place. Animals are being killed everyday, not just through animal testing, but also for food and other luxuries. So why aren't almost 50% of young people in the UK against eating meat? Animals reproduce quickly and in large numbers, and this is benefiting research on heredity and genetics. There aren't any alternatives to testing on animals which have as much leeway in the types of testing people can carry out, and this is another important argument in support of animal testing.
However, even though there is so much evidence to show that animal testing is advantageous to us, there is also a lot of evidence showing that animal testing will provide us with results that are of no use to humans. For example, penicillin is used in antibiotics to help prevent the growth of disease causing bacteria. However it is lethal, and will kill guinea pigs. Mahatma Gandhi believed that "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated." His opinion echoes that of many thousands of people who are against animal testing. Yet it is easily possible that a society could care for and protect animals in some ways and still endorse sacrificing a few for such obvious long-term benefits.
Last year, a "notorious toxicity test" called 'lethal dose to 50 per cent' or LD50, was banned worldwide. Prior to the ban, many European countries had been arguing that LD50 was an unnecessarily cruel and pointless test, and the scientific director of Britain's fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments claimed, "If you dosed an animal at this high level, its death was unlikely to be a direct effect of the chemical itself." The LD50 test also had questionable scientific significance according to scientists, and many animal welfare activists were delighted to learn of its abolishment. The biggest rivals of the ban were the US and Japan, but they finally accepted the change, with a large number of companies applying to have chemicals approved of in their countries.
On the other hand, much more evidence of the benefits of animal testing has been clearly established, which argues for its continuance. Firstly, vaccinations developed through animal testing for diseases like rubella or polio have prevented millions of human deaths and kept millions more out of hospitals and wheelchairs. Secondly, although this is not usually one of the key reasons supporting animal testing, cost is important. If scientists were to perform all experiments and research on humans and cell tissue instead of animals, it would cost a great deal more, and also would take a lot longer. Finally, most people do not realize that only 200,000 dogs and cats from humane environments are being tested on, in comparison to the 10 million, which are being put down in animal shelters annually. Complainers and campaigners are highly selective in their statistics, and that is why lots of people continue to criticize experiments on animals.
I do fully support animal testing, despite the pain and brutality inflicted on the animals. I do not think that the animals deserve to be burned, injected or force-fed chemicals, but where this really helps develop cures for both humans and animals, I still see the long-term advantages. Although it sounds unkind, animal testing should carry on for as long as if benefits man kind. Animal testing has contributed to our society in so many different ways, that it would be foolish to ban or abolish it. I'm sure that the rules on what scientists can inflict on the animals could be stricter, so as to help reduce the amount of suffering, but to actually be completely against animal testing seems irrational. Significantly great amounts of people have been saved, and it would be hypocritical for us to be against animal testing if we take medicine developed with the help of animals, or even wear make-up developed with the help of animals.
One of the main facts that stands out the most to me is that the amount of animals used for experiments is actually 1% less than the number used for food, and yet meat-eating people remain against animal testing. Even brands such as Johnson & Johnson and Covergirl continue to test on animals as they make more and more money.
Do not automatically decry animal testing before you know all the facts. Although we now experiment on more than 100 million animals each year, in the future we will have such advanced technology that we will not even need animals as guinea pigs. However, until that happens, the testing must continue so that a health and disease-free society for all can become a reality.
