“Experiments using animals have played a crucial role in the development of modern medical treatments, and they will continue to be necessary” states Adrian R. Morrison (University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine) in the Scientific American. Some people, like Morrison, are convinced that to restrict research with animals would prevent discoveries that would benefit humankind. Animal experimentation has enabled progress in many aspects of science for humans and it has led to many discoveries such as antibiotics, vaccines, diabetes research, organ transplants and so on. The benefits for animal experimentation – acquisition of new knowledge and development of new therapies – however have a cost in animal suffering. It is proven that certain animals, such as mice and primates have emotions. However, even if those animals can feel fear, anxiety, boredom and isolation in the laboratories, many people believe that a certain form of cost-benefit analysis can justify the use of animals.
The main argument to justify the inhumane use of animals is that evolution has placed humans on top, so it is natural for us to use other creatures. In response to this simplistic argument, one animal advocate declares: “Killing and using animals is an integral part of the evolution of human beings. Not killing and not using animals is the next step in our evolution”. In other words, the fact that humans have used animals does not imply that we should continue to do so.
Every day of a year, thousands of fully conscious animals are scalded, beaten or crushed to death, and more are subjected to horrible surgery and then allowed to die slowly and in agony. Is this morally correct? “No”, says Ingrid Newkirk of PETA, “When it comes to feeling pain, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”. It is totally wrong to use defenceless animals even if it is for the benefit of humans. These poor, innocent creatures have no way to fight back or to express what they really feel in a way that people can understand and, thus, feel compassion.
With the new alternative methods – human tissue, cell cultures, epidemiological studies, autopsy studies, in vitro, biopsy imaging methods and many others – scientists are able to test the new products without the suffering of animals. In fact, with the unique biology of the species being studied, the unnatural way by which the disease was introduced and the stressful environment of the laboratory, it is proven that animal research can sometimes be misleading. Neal D. Bernard (President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) says in Scientific American, “Important medical advances have been delayed because of misleading results derived from animal experiment.” In vitro studies with human cells and serum have permitted scientists to identify the AIDS virus and determine its effect, whereas, on the other side, the usage of thousands of animals for AIDS research have led to few useful results. Moreover, in some cases, animal experiments have caused harm to humans. For example, the antidepressant nomifensine, which had minimal toxicity in rats, rabbits, dogs and monkeys, caused liver toxicity and anemia in humans. Since each species has characteristic systems of organs, it makes no logical sense to test a theory about humans using animals.
In conclusion, using animals for testing is morally wrong and should be banned. Animal testing is inhumane and no living being should be forced to endure such torture regardless of the benefit to humans. By encouraging these methods, the government is not only contributing to a waste of money – costs of misleading experiences and money to buy and to keep the animals – but also to a waste of lives.
