Kelcie Connors
Miss Phibbs
ELA 3
February 4,2019
Should Animals be Used for Scientific and Commercial Testing?
The United States Department of Agriculture reported that in 2016 alone 71,270
animals suffered pain during testings (Animal Testing ProCon.org). Animal testing has
been a controversy, and long debated for years. The ongoing issue has been regulated
by many services and departments. Animal testing is when an animal is forced to
undergo some type of test that may cause pain, suffering, side effects, and even in
some cases death for scientific or commercial purposes. Animals should not be used for
scientific and commercial testings because it is cruel and inhumane, alternative
methods now exist that replace the need for animals, and animals exhibit many
differences from humans and therefore make poor test subjects.
Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Decades of observational and
experimental research have proven that animals experience pain, suffering, side effects,
and have resulted in death during experiments. For example, “they are commonly
subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, physical
restraint, infliction of pain, and decapitation’’(Animal Testing ProCon.org). Furthermore,
researchers and testers use a variety of procedures to obtain the results and outcomes
they are looking for. According to Noah Berlatsky, author of Animal Rights, ‘’they have
conducted experiments including immersing tails in hot water, radiant heat, binder clip
on tails, injected irritants into feet, bladder inflammation, chemicals that cause painful
cystitis in humans, injected acetic acid, abdominal constriction, writhe, and surgery
without analgesics.’’ Although there are many different purposes for these testings most
of the experiments involve various types of suffering or damage to, if not all, most of the
animals. In addition,‘’the Draize eye test used to evaluate irritation involves rabbits
being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for
multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested’’(Animal Testing
ProCon.org). Overall, these are multiple prime examples of animals experiencing brutal
and severe scientific and commercial based testings.
Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animal
usage. Every year in the U.S animal experimentation uses billions of dollars. Using new
technological advancements, we can reduce the cost. Computer models such as virtual
reconstructions can predict more dependable results without ‘’invasive experiments’’ on
animals (Animal Testing ProCon.org). Microfluidic chips are in advanced stages of
development. Artificial human skin can produce more useful results than testing
chemicals on animal skin. Microdosing can be used in real human volunteers, in which
are harmless and less exposed to animals. In Vitro testing produced results can be
more relevant than animal testing because human cells can be used (Animal Testing
ProCon.org). Replacement, reduction, and refinement are also ‘’ influential guiding
principles’’ for use of animals in testings (MacClellan). Replacement includes the priority
of increased alternatives that produce the authentic research data without the usage of
animals. Examples of replacement include computer models, epidemiological data,
tissue cultures, isolated organs, and non sentient animals. MacClellan states,
‘’Reduction is the effort to obtain comparable data using fewer animals analgesics,
veterinary care, improved living quarters, and enrichment. Further development and
increased implementation of alternatives to and refinement of animal testing is still
advancing’’(MacClellan).All in all, with our new advancement in this area of study we
should not have the need for animals, and therefore use our alternatives for a greater
purpose.
Animals are also very different from humans, and thus make poor test subjects.
The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences linking animals and people make for
poor models for human beings. For instance,‘’it is very hard to create an animal model
that even equates closely to what we are trying to achieve in the human,’’ states Paul
Furlong of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (Animal Testing ProCon.org).
Therefore these differences can initiate poor outcomes.The author describes, ‘’Thomas
Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at John Hopkins University argues
opposing animal testing because ‘’we are not 70 kg rats’’(Animal Testing ProCon.org).
Animals should not be our resort to go to testing for because they can result in
unreliable statistics and and predict off based results.
On the other hand, some may argue animal testing has contributed to many life
saving cures and treatments. However, it may be true some medical advancements
stem from scientific testings, but they are most likely flawed. Berlatsky states from
another source, ‘’Medical advancement is attributable to experiments on animals”
(Berlatsky 31). This evaluated claim was in fact proven false and determined not
supported. The tests being conducted were irrelevant to humans and did not contribute
meaningfully to advances. So you can conclude animal test results do not all reliably
predict results in human beings.
There are many reasons for scientific testing to not be legal such as unreliable
results, cruel inhumane situations they are forced into, and the new alternative
advancements. An animal right now could be suffering from stroke for the new makeup
brand you’re wanting, or cologne you’re waiting for. Is the life of 100 mice worth the new
makeup brand you’re waiting for, or the deaths of 100 rabbits costly enough for the
cologne you want for your birthday? So one may ask is billions of dollars a year at
animal’s expense really worth the consequence of deaths, unreliable outcomes, and
inconsistent predicaments?
