Should Animal Testing be Allowed?
Imagine living in a world that puts innocent animals through horrific conditions. These conditions include breaking the necks of animals and decapitating them (“Should”). This type of world exists and is present through animal testing. Animal testing has regulations. The regulations only cover a small percentage of animals. The issue is beginning to get worse since Britain has approved a facility for breeding beagles for the use of animal testing. The dogs will endure surgery, while the beagles are conscious (Willis). This paper will inform the audience on the pros and cons of animal testing. Animal testing does have some benefits; the benefits include furthering the medical field and ensuring the safety of …show more content…
New technology is changing the idea that animal testing is necessary. Artificial skin can replace the need for animal testing (“Alternatives”). The artificial skin is a good alternative for testing cosmetics on rather than using animals. The skin of animals varies from a human`s because the blood cells organize differently (Yau). The artificial skin gives a greater account on how people may react to certain cosmetics. The cosmetic company L’Oréal is going to test their products on artificial skin (Jacques). The artificial skin is cheaper than animal testing and could save many animals from the suffering defective products cause. In fact, ninety-four percent of products that pass animal testing, do not pass a clinical trial (“Should”). In other words, animal testing is not the most reliable choice. Human blood is another great alternative. Volunteers could donate blood and save the lives of many rabbits, since they are a main source for researchers to extract blood (“Alternatives”). A third example is a chip that replicates the function of lungs (Kharpal). Animals do not have to potentially have breathing problems to endure from medication testing. The US drug industry gives fifty billion a year for animal testing, but the government approves new drugs at the same rate that they were being approved at fifty years ago (“Arguments”). Animal testing is receiving more money from the government, but there is not much advancement with all the money. Animal testing should not be allowed because it is an ineffective method for checking the safety of products and there are cheaper
Imagine living in a world that puts innocent animals through horrific conditions. These conditions include breaking the necks of animals and decapitating them (“Should”). This type of world exists and is present through animal testing. Animal testing has regulations. The regulations only cover a small percentage of animals. The issue is beginning to get worse since Britain has approved a facility for breeding beagles for the use of animal testing. The dogs will endure surgery, while the beagles are conscious (Willis). This paper will inform the audience on the pros and cons of animal testing. Animal testing does have some benefits; the benefits include furthering the medical field and ensuring the safety of …show more content…
New technology is changing the idea that animal testing is necessary. Artificial skin can replace the need for animal testing (“Alternatives”). The artificial skin is a good alternative for testing cosmetics on rather than using animals. The skin of animals varies from a human`s because the blood cells organize differently (Yau). The artificial skin gives a greater account on how people may react to certain cosmetics. The cosmetic company L’Oréal is going to test their products on artificial skin (Jacques). The artificial skin is cheaper than animal testing and could save many animals from the suffering defective products cause. In fact, ninety-four percent of products that pass animal testing, do not pass a clinical trial (“Should”). In other words, animal testing is not the most reliable choice. Human blood is another great alternative. Volunteers could donate blood and save the lives of many rabbits, since they are a main source for researchers to extract blood (“Alternatives”). A third example is a chip that replicates the function of lungs (Kharpal). Animals do not have to potentially have breathing problems to endure from medication testing. The US drug industry gives fifty billion a year for animal testing, but the government approves new drugs at the same rate that they were being approved at fifty years ago (“Arguments”). Animal testing is receiving more money from the government, but there is not much advancement with all the money. Animal testing should not be allowed because it is an ineffective method for checking the safety of products and there are cheaper