Patricia Salinas

English II

12-11-17

Should animal testing be allowed?

Throughout history, animals have been used for biomedical research which has led to an

advance in the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Animal

testing is the experimentation of products on animals to test whether they are safe for human use.

Often the animals that are subjected to this testing are burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated,

starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, or experience brain-damage. People justify this

experimentation because it has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. However,

nowadays the use of animals for testing is debated among those who approve of it for scientific

reasons and those who argue that the benefits to humans do not justify the harm to animals. After

all, humans are animals too. Animal testing should be outlawed because it is cruel and inhumane,

animals are poor test subjects as they are very different from humans, and alternative testing

methods exist that can replace the need for animals.

Animal testing should be outlawed because it is cruel and inhumane. The experiments

performed on animals are unjustified as they bring much pain and suffering to animals. Even

when not being tested on, animals have to endure the rough treatment and conditions in

laboratories. In “Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint” by Peta, it states, “The

only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA),

allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to

drugs, and brain-damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and

painkillers are not even required. ” Just like humans, animals feel, think, behave, and experience
pain yet they are not given the same type of treatment. Humans have the option to participate in

experiments but animals cannot speak for themselves and give consent to be experimented on.

However, animals still have rights and they must be respected just like those of humans would.

Humans should understand that forcing such treatment upon animals is morally wrong regardless

of the purpose behind it. Even more so when test results are inaccurate and in vain.

Animal experimentation should not be allowed because animals are poor test subjects as

they are very different from humans. As similar as humans and animals may appear, there will

always be differences in the way they react to different products. There have been many cases in

which products tested on animals were deemed safe for human use but ended up having serious

side effects on human. Results gathered from animal testing do not guarantee the safe use for

humans so why take animal lives and risk human lives. In “Against Animal Testing,” Dr. Ray

Greek MD states, “A medication used to treat asthma, it proved devastatingly toxic to humans in

the amounts recommended based on animal studies. In Great Britain alone, 3,500 asthmatics died

from using the medication.” This medicine known as Isuprel tested safely but turned out to be

deadly for thousands of humans. Often, the data collected through testing cannot be trusted

because the animals have anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences. In cases like these,

animal testing is not a reliable method to test products and ends up causing harm to humans

instead. Therefore, animals should not be used in testing, especially when other alternatives

could be used to prevent health issues and deaths.

Lastly, animal testing should not be allowed because alternative testing methods exist that

can replace the need for animals. These alternatives include in vitro test methods, models based

on human cell and tissue cultures, computer models and simulations, stem cell and genetic

testing methods, microdosing, among others. Alternative scientific tests have also been proven to
be more beneficial than animal testing. Test results are usually more reliable, toxicity testing is

more accurate, more convenient, and cruelty-free. According to The New England Anti-

Vivisection Society, “EpiDerm, an in vitro test derived from cultured human skin cells, was

found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants than traditional animal tests. In

comparison studies, EpiDerm correctly detected all of the test chemicals that irritate human skin,

while tests on rabbits misclassified 10 out of 25 test chemicals—a full 40% error rate.” (Testing

Alternatives) In vitro tests like EpiDerm can correctly identify all irritants but animals tests fail

to do so. Thus, alternative methods are much better than animal testing because they provide

accurate results. Both animals and humans would benefit from this method since no animals

would be harmed and humans wouldn’t be exposed to products that aren’t safe for use. When

new and better options emerge, it is logical to follow the new option rather than sticking with the

previous. This mentality applies to animal testing and therefore the methods of testing on animals

should be abandoned.

On the other hand, animal testing should be allowed because it has contributed to many

life-saving cures and treatments. Animal research has contributed to major advances in

understanding and treating conditions such as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia,

cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental

in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. It has even been

said that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from

research using animals. Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer

Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without

chimpanzees," and says that “Our best hope for a hepatitis C vaccine is chimpanzees since

there’s no other animal model for it. If a loved one of yours is one of the 15,000 people in the
United States who die annually of hepatitis C, the research might be more important to you.”

(Texas research chimps face retirement, relocation) Without the use of animal testing, it would

have taken many more years to develop medication to combat hepatitis B. Thousands would

have died during that period of time and thousands will if research isn’t done to develop a

vaccine for hepatitis C. Animal testing is the only method that can make progress against

diseases so it is necessary in order to save human lives. However, an animals life is worth just as

much as that of a human. "Animals are subjects of a life just as human beings are, and a subject

of a life has inherent value." (Tom Regan) Animals have feelings, thoughts, goals, needs, and

desires that are similar to human functions and capacities. Additionally, many animals have

internal systems and organs that are identical to the structures and functions of human internal

organs. These similarities should be respected, not exploited, because of the selfishness of

humans. Therefore, animal testing should be outlawed because it violates animals’ rights as

living beings.

Overall, animal testing should not be allowed because experimenting on animals is

immoral, results are unreliable, and there are better options available. This issue should not be

ignored because at the end of the day, humans and animals are both living beings and neither

should the treated differently. Physical differences do exist and affect the reliability of test

results. In many cases this goes unnoticed until humans suffer from side effects. To add on, there

are various other methods of testing that provide better results and are altogether much better

than animal experimentation. Using alternatives would still provide the results desired with

animal testing minus the actual use of animals. Therefore, animal testing should be outlawed

because it brings more pain and suffering rather than benefits to animals and humans. Even if it

can’t be completely outlawed, laws should be established to protect the rights of animals and
lower the number of deaths resulting from animal experimentation.

Bibliography

“Animal Testing and Medicine” by Rachel Hajar, January 2011:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123518/
Throughout history, animals have been used for biomedical research which has led to an advance

in the understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. However, nowadays

the use of animals for testing is debated among those who approve of it for scientific reasons and

those who argue that the benefit to humans does not justify the harm to animals. This source

relates to my argument because it describes the perspectives of those who are for and against

animal testing with relative evidence to back both sides up. The article is especially useful for my

argument as it helps me gather subpoints for my main claim that animal testing is cruel and

inhumane. The article states, “Many people also believe that animals are inferior to humans and

very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans.” Not only is

animal testing inhumane but the results that are collected aren’t 100% reliable and thus the

products that are tested aren’t assured to be safe for human use.

“Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing” by Heather Dunnuck, n.d.:

http://www.lonestar.edu/stopanimaltesting.htm

This paper is an argumentative essay written by a student at Lone Star College that argues why

animal testing should be eliminated. The author’s main reasons are that animal testing violates

animals' rights, it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals, and other means of

testing product toxicity are available. She believes that despite all the advances animal testing

had brought, humans cannot be justified for such treatment. This is an excellent source for my

topic especially since it argues the same position that I stand for, anti-animal testing. Dunnuck

provides a strong argument with credible sources that can help guide me through my own essay.

In her paper, she cites, “animal [experimentation] is morally wrong no matter how much humans

may benefit because the animal's basic right has been infringed. Risks are not morally
transferable to those who do not choose to take them.” This is one of the strongest parts of the

paper that explains how animal’s rights are being violated because they are not given a choice.

Unlike humans, animals can not speak for themselves and give consent to be experimented on.

However, animals still have rights and they must be respected just like those of humans would.

“Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint” by Peta, 2017:

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

This source gathers various statements supporting animal testing and contradicts them using

evidence from studies published in prestigious medical journals. Those studies have shown time

and again that animal testing wastes animal and human lives as well as precious resources that

could be used elsewhere. Unlike many claims, animal testing isn’t as great as they say it is. The

site focuses on my position which is against animal testing. Even more so, it contradicts

statements from the opposing side to leave little room for argument and thus increasing the

potential of my essay. I plan to use the following quote in my essay: “The only U.S. law that

governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), allows animals to be

burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-

damaged. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not

even required.” These tests are unjustified as they bring much pain and suffering to animals. The

subjects aren’t even given painkillers. Further showing how animal testing is unethical and

shouldn’t be allowed.

“Against Animal Testing” by Dr. Ray Greek MD and Jessica Sandler, 2017:

http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.au/against-animal-testing/
As similar as humans and animals may appear, there will always be differences in the ways they

react to different products. There have been many cases in which products tested on animals

were deemed safe for human use but ended up having serious side effects on human. Results

gathered from animal testing do not guarantee the safe use of humans so why take animal lives

and risk human lives. This relates to my stance against animal testing as it shows that results

collected aren’t always reliable and may actually cause more harm than good for humans. All the

evidence stated in this article could be used to backup my reasons for why animal testing should

not be allowed. The fact that the authors are experts on the topic make the source more credible

and thus would make my argument stronger. Examples such as the following could be used in

my argumentative essay: “A medication used to treat asthma, it proved devastatingly toxic to

humans in the amounts recommended based on animal studies. In Great Britain alone, 3,500

asthmatics died from using the medication.” This medicine known as Isuprel tested safely but

turned out to be deadly for thousands of humans. In cases like these, animal testing is not a

reliable method to test products so other alternatives should be used to prevent health issues and

deaths.

“Testing Alternatives” by New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 2017.:

http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing

When it comes to testing, there are many other alternatives that could be used rather than animal

testing. These include in vitro test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures,

computer models and simulations, stem cell and genetic testing methods, microdosing, among

other methods. Alternative scientific tests have also been proven to be more beneficial than

animal testing. Test results are usually more reliable, toxicity testing is more accurate, more
convenient, and cruelty-free. This source relates to my topic as is discusses other methods of

testing that could be used to replace animal testing. There are new methods that provide better

results for less so why continue using animals in testing. The author(s) explain each benefit and

even uses statistics is great evidence. One piece that I could cite for my essay is as follows:

“EpiDerm, an in vitro test derived from cultured human skin cells, was found to be more

accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants than traditional animal tests. In comparison studies,

EpiDerm correctly detected all of the test chemicals that irritate human skin, while tests on

rabbits misclassified 10 out of 25 test chemicals—a full 40% error rate.” In vitro tests like

EpiDerm can correctly identify all irritants but animals tests fail to do so. Thus supporting how

alternative methods are much better than animal testing because they provide accurate results.