Animal research or animal testing “refers to the use of animals in experiments within academic research or commercial establishments,” (Swami 269). While the topic of animal testing has a tendency to brew several disputes with its controversial properties, it is no doubt an intriguing one. Examining the positives and negatives of animal examination would certainly cause one to question whether or not animal testing should be permitted, and if it reflects practices of animal abuse. Although there are downsides to animal testing, it should be allowed due to the precautions for human safety. Other than human protection, these studies provide job opportunities for further science research. Animal testing surely possess several cons, yet despite
…show more content…
“Under worst case scenario, the HPV program had the potential to consume 3.5 million animals in new testing,” (Sandler 1631). As the saying goes, there is always a positive to a negative. Aside from the fact that the animals tested on are not able to live a normal, natural life, these testing’s may lead us to more “scientific breakthroughs” (Swami 269). Those against the testing’s on animals tend to argue that there alternatives to animal testing, and that scientists can figure out a way to replace the animals. While there are options to reduce the amount of these testing’s, “contributors presented the latest scientific advances in developing alternatives to the use of animals in pharmaceutical research and developing and regulatory toxicity testing” (Ferdowsian 1), for several “important kinds of testing” (Ranganatha 29) there is no possible way to replace the animals completely. Scientists have the capability of using “lesser organisms” for testing, such as plants and microorganisms instead of “greater organisms” including rats or monkeys and other testable animals. “Replacement also means replacing ‘higher’ animals with the ‘lower’ animals. Microorganisms, plants, eggs, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates may be used in some studies to replace warm- blooded animals,” (Ranganatha 28). But using plants and microorganisms would bring us to another problem with loss of oxygen for all organisms and resources of food for herbivores and that would lead to a disruption in the food
“Under worst case scenario, the HPV program had the potential to consume 3.5 million animals in new testing,” (Sandler 1631). As the saying goes, there is always a positive to a negative. Aside from the fact that the animals tested on are not able to live a normal, natural life, these testing’s may lead us to more “scientific breakthroughs” (Swami 269). Those against the testing’s on animals tend to argue that there alternatives to animal testing, and that scientists can figure out a way to replace the animals. While there are options to reduce the amount of these testing’s, “contributors presented the latest scientific advances in developing alternatives to the use of animals in pharmaceutical research and developing and regulatory toxicity testing” (Ferdowsian 1), for several “important kinds of testing” (Ranganatha 29) there is no possible way to replace the animals completely. Scientists have the capability of using “lesser organisms” for testing, such as plants and microorganisms instead of “greater organisms” including rats or monkeys and other testable animals. “Replacement also means replacing ‘higher’ animals with the ‘lower’ animals. Microorganisms, plants, eggs, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates may be used in some studies to replace warm- blooded animals,” (Ranganatha 28). But using plants and microorganisms would bring us to another problem with loss of oxygen for all organisms and resources of food for herbivores and that would lead to a disruption in the food