BBC News stated that approximately 700 animals are being killed to for animal testing, but out of those 700 only one animal did not die in vain. This animal found a cure for a human illness, yet the rest 699 animals died in the name of science. Before these animals died, they experienced torture, suffering, pain, and fear. These animal 's fear being next and not being able to survive. If they survive the torture, they will keep fighting until they realize the pain is part of their daily routine. Therefore, animal testing should not be legal for the sake of causing animals to experience mental and physical damage, there are alternatives, and it provides imprecise results.
Animal testing causes animals to suffer emotional distress and physical …show more content…
A high percentage of researchers believe animals and humans will have the same results, but animals are not similar to us. For example, Vioxx is an arthritis drug that was successfully tested on animals, but it caused 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in humans (Archibald 14-16). The author discusses in her article “Many studies published in the scientific literature comparing drug side effects in human and animals have found animal tests to be less predictive than tossing a coin” (Archibald 14-16). She agrees with other researchers about the imprecise results of animal testing. The scientist that tested Vioxx on animals concluded the drug would work the same on humans because animals were tested successfully, but there predictions did not result to be what they expected. There are some researchers that have proven there is a massive similarity between humans and animals, but other scientist have confirmed there is an enormous risk of not having precise results for the reason that animals are not 100% similar to us. In fact a Spun mentions “Animals may be 99.9 percent similar to humans, but it is not good enough. At the cellular level, .1 percent is a big deal” (Spun 21). This scientist agrees with other scientists about the small percentage being a risk to human results. There are still multiple researchers that realize 1% is a huge risk for testing, but yet few scientist keep believing animal testing is a considerable method for the human
Animal testing causes animals to suffer emotional distress and physical …show more content…
A high percentage of researchers believe animals and humans will have the same results, but animals are not similar to us. For example, Vioxx is an arthritis drug that was successfully tested on animals, but it caused 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in humans (Archibald 14-16). The author discusses in her article “Many studies published in the scientific literature comparing drug side effects in human and animals have found animal tests to be less predictive than tossing a coin” (Archibald 14-16). She agrees with other researchers about the imprecise results of animal testing. The scientist that tested Vioxx on animals concluded the drug would work the same on humans because animals were tested successfully, but there predictions did not result to be what they expected. There are some researchers that have proven there is a massive similarity between humans and animals, but other scientist have confirmed there is an enormous risk of not having precise results for the reason that animals are not 100% similar to us. In fact a Spun mentions “Animals may be 99.9 percent similar to humans, but it is not good enough. At the cellular level, .1 percent is a big deal” (Spun 21). This scientist agrees with other scientists about the small percentage being a risk to human results. There are still multiple researchers that realize 1% is a huge risk for testing, but yet few scientist keep believing animal testing is a considerable method for the human