Ethics Of Animal Testing

The beginnings to animal testing were used for common colds, then the testing varieties grew, which caused protests against animal cruelty and helped us find alternatives to animal testing, which should be used in place of the current practices. The three Greek physician-scientists who started animal testing were Aristotle, Erasistratus, and Galen. The practice of using animals for biomedical research has come under severe criticism by animal protection and animal rights groups. This practice has "started to cause debates on the ethics of animal testing have raged since the seventeenth century" (Hajar). Thanks to animal testing protest groups a pharmaceutical sulfa drug was discovered. This article said that, "in 1937, a pharmaceutical company …show more content…
One of the funds comes from 5k runs that are for cancer research programs. These "cancer research 5k runners probably don 't like to think about it, but some of the money from the race is spent on procuring animals for use in experiments" (Brooks). Other studies have shown that "about 20 million animals are experimented on and killed annually, three-fourths for medical purposes and the rest to test various products" (Andre and Velasguez), and that "sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing" (Balls). Animal testing was created so we could find cures for simple diseases, but evolved into more complicated diseases. Animal testing grew from simple common cold tests, to harmful tests that promise death to the suffering …show more content…
The research that started non-animal testing revealed that experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. "When we do non-animal testing with human skin cells, the skin cells are put through an in virtro test. 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" (MacLennan). 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"