The first article is written by Heather Tomlinson. In the article which is called, “if mice could talk” she wrote that if animal testing was banned completely by someone like the government it would cut down the development of new effective drugs for diseases, which would be bad as these diseases are deadly and drugs need to be found to cure them. She also thinks that the violent animal rights protesters are making the most impact in the debate because the protesters are interrupting the debate and making a mess of it, and she doesn’t think this is fair. She also says that if animal testing was to be banned in the UK the testing would be done in other countries and this would be terrible for the animals as there are a lot fewer laws in other countries to do with people testing drugs or things on animals. She also thinks in the laboratories the animals are not treated cruelly, and animals are treated a lot worse in peoples house.
On the other hand the other article argues that animal testing should be stopped completely. “Ghandi’s way won’t do it” written by Karen dawn says that drug companies make lots of new drugs which do literally nothing towards all the effort it takes to test a drug. This means that thousands of animals are dying easily. She then goes on to say that animals are a lot different to humans and it would be better science to test them on humans as you would get a better result because it is humans that are suffering mostly from disease.
I think these articles are biased as they do not present both of the arguments very well. I think Karen Dawn does not take into mind that all these animals are a help to making new drugs and that finding alternatives to this would cost a lot of money. I also think that Heather Tomlinson does not know that many animals are becoming ill or even dying because of testing on animals, and that sometimes animal testing is not a good result.
This is an important argument as a lot of animals and human’s lives are lost because drugs are not being tested properly. It is also very expensive when you think about all the work and tools that are needed to test a drug on an animal. Researching into ways of not using animal testing is very expensive. Drug companies spend millions of pounds researching into ways of doing this. Also if animal testing was totally band completely in the UK, almost no new drugs would be created and therefore lives would be lost, and the NHS would not benefit at all. The NHS would also loose a lot more customers and a lot of their money as no new drugs would be used to treat seriously ill patients who are dying and are in need of care.
I agree that testing on animals when nothing is going to contribute to an ill patient is totally wrong as it is a waste of an animal or humans life, but it is not always necessary to test drugs on animals because it isn’t giving a stronger result. The animals are bread for one purpose to test for these drugs. The animals would not be alive if animal testing was not around.
I disagree when Dawn quotes “peaceful protesting is not enough” I believe that death and even violence in this situation is wrong because the main point of this is to save peoples lives and violence and death is just taking lives away and it is using up all the good resources provided by the NHS.
Therefore, I do not support animal testing because I think that it is cruelty to animals, by keeping them in laboratories and testing all sorts of drugs on them. If a drug is going to be tested, test it on a human to get a much better result as animals are a lot different to humans. I do not think they should keep testing drugs on animals as it could lead to death of the animal or a terrible illness. Although animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB for humans, I don’t think it is fair that another living creature should have to suffer instead of us.
