When Is Animal Testing Wrong

In discussions of animal testing, one controversial issue has been whether animals can feel emotions as humans do, and furthermore, if they can then is the use of animals in research morally wrong? On the one hand, scientists that use animals as test subjects, such as Helosia Sabin and her late husband, argue that it is crucial for any medical progress because much testing is required before releasing a new drug into the public. On the other hand, people like Peggy Carlson, a scientist herself, and Peter Singer, a philosopher and bioethicist, contend that animal testing is irrelevant since an animal’s genetic makeup differs greatly from a human’s and the practice is unjust since animals suffer.
My own view is that Carlson and Singer are correct since animals do have feelings and are capable of suffering similar to the way humans do; therefore, animal testing is cruel as well as unnecessary considering all of the animals used are not biologically similar enough to humans to produce accurate results in research. I believe that the money used to fund …show more content…
Peggy Carlson knew this when she declared “none of the twenty-five compounds “proven” efficacious for treating stroke in animal experiments over the preceding ten years have been effective for use in humans. From human studies alone we have learned how to lessen the risk of heart attacks” (161). Her point is that even after all the time put into animal testing, in this case a decade, the data produced from such experiments are irrelevant to human application which is a waste of time, money, and animal lives. In order to understand more about humans and how we react to different compounds, scientists are destined to work with humans. This is the only effective way to achieve the results desired because products meant for human use should be determined suitable for people, not