Imagine you were a chimpanzee and you were given HIV by doctors, and then you didn’t help any discovery about how to cure it, and possibly you died. This is why it is not justified to test on animals. It is inhumane and evil. Animal testing hurts animals. It also doesn’t help human research. Some people may say that animal testing is the only option, but there are so many other ways that we can test cures.
Animal testing hurts animals. U.S. law allows animals to be hurt and not even given painkillers. In “Animal Testing is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint” by PETA it says, “The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain damaged.” The U.S. …show more content…
“Animal Testing is Bad Science Point/Counterpoint” by PETA says, “We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissue (e.g., MatTeks EpiDerm), produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits.” This suggests that with new technologies, we can save animals’ lives. Animals are also inhabitants on earth, they were here first, and we have to protect them, not kill them. Also, “Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products” by The New York Times says, “Human skin, eyes, and the lining of the throat—snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs, or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products.” Animal testing may soon be coming to an end. Other technologies are taking the place of animal testing because millions of animals are killed every year, and the things tested on them that were safe, were not safe for humans. Sometimes so unsafe that they could never be marketed. We also spend a lot of money on animal testing, but if it doesn’t work, then we should be spending the money on newer
Animal testing hurts animals. U.S. law allows animals to be hurt and not even given painkillers. In “Animal Testing is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint” by PETA it says, “The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain damaged.” The U.S. …show more content…
“Animal Testing is Bad Science Point/Counterpoint” by PETA says, “We can now test skin irritation using reconstructed human tissue (e.g., MatTeks EpiDerm), produce and test vaccines using human tissues, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits.” This suggests that with new technologies, we can save animals’ lives. Animals are also inhabitants on earth, they were here first, and we have to protect them, not kill them. Also, “Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products” by The New York Times says, “Human skin, eyes, and the lining of the throat—snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs, or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products.” Animal testing may soon be coming to an end. Other technologies are taking the place of animal testing because millions of animals are killed every year, and the things tested on them that were safe, were not safe for humans. Sometimes so unsafe that they could never be marketed. We also spend a lot of money on animal testing, but if it doesn’t work, then we should be spending the money on newer