Pain is an inherent evil felt by any living, breathing creature; be it a mouse or a human. Inflicting pain on another creature is simply immoral and should be prohibited. According to the words of a British philosopher of the nineteenth century, Jeremy Bentham, those who support the welfare of animals believe that the question about tests on animals, “is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but, ‘Can they suffer?’” (Bentham). Animals do suffer and do feel pain; even though they may not express it into words humans can understand, if it is wrong to exact pain on a human beings, then it is just as wrong to do so on an animal. Although some believe that animal testing is accessible and inexpensive, intentionally harming animals is unethical
…show more content…
Despite the claim that animal research has strengthened the world of medicine and technology, relying on inaccurate tests that prove to be questionable solutions for human products is dangerous and is considered flawed science. Some argue that there are benefits yielded from animal testing, such as the vaccine for smallpox, derived “from the cowpox virus used by Edward Jenner... that farm workers who contracted cowpox were protected against smallpox” (BENEFITS). Contrary to popular belief that animals prove to be accurate testing for medical products, the FDA notes that “92% of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they [do not] work or are dangerous” (Animal Testing is Bad Science). Animal testing does not promise a guarantee of safety and accuracy because all species have different variations. Even …show more content…
They note that technology today simply does not “have the technological sophistication to replicate the incredibly intricate and sensitive machinery of even the simplest animal organisms, let alone the much more complex human body” (ALTERNATIVES). Even though technology has not reached a point where tests can be completely realistic; it does not require a life for another life. On the contrary, testing on animals is also not as accurate and precise and takes millions of animals each year. Alternative testing are processes that reduce, replace, and refine the use of animals in experiments, meaning that the methods reduces the amount of animals, refines the animal’s well being, and replaces animals with technological models (Alternatives to Animal Tests: The Humane Society of United States). The three R’s protect and enhance the process of animal testing, ensuring that animals are used less often, and if used, they are treated properly. Using alternatives also provides a more economical and humane approach to medical testing and it may take years to study animals whereas methods such as in vitro will take up to minutes. Using a rat for a 2 year long cancer bioassay will cost up to $700,000 but the expense of a syrian hamster cell
Despite the claim that animal research has strengthened the world of medicine and technology, relying on inaccurate tests that prove to be questionable solutions for human products is dangerous and is considered flawed science. Some argue that there are benefits yielded from animal testing, such as the vaccine for smallpox, derived “from the cowpox virus used by Edward Jenner... that farm workers who contracted cowpox were protected against smallpox” (BENEFITS). Contrary to popular belief that animals prove to be accurate testing for medical products, the FDA notes that “92% of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they [do not] work or are dangerous” (Animal Testing is Bad Science). Animal testing does not promise a guarantee of safety and accuracy because all species have different variations. Even …show more content…
They note that technology today simply does not “have the technological sophistication to replicate the incredibly intricate and sensitive machinery of even the simplest animal organisms, let alone the much more complex human body” (ALTERNATIVES). Even though technology has not reached a point where tests can be completely realistic; it does not require a life for another life. On the contrary, testing on animals is also not as accurate and precise and takes millions of animals each year. Alternative testing are processes that reduce, replace, and refine the use of animals in experiments, meaning that the methods reduces the amount of animals, refines the animal’s well being, and replaces animals with technological models (Alternatives to Animal Tests: The Humane Society of United States). The three R’s protect and enhance the process of animal testing, ensuring that animals are used less often, and if used, they are treated properly. Using alternatives also provides a more economical and humane approach to medical testing and it may take years to study animals whereas methods such as in vitro will take up to minutes. Using a rat for a 2 year long cancer bioassay will cost up to $700,000 but the expense of a syrian hamster cell