Animal Testing Millions of animals are being used for medical and beauty products, along with biology lessons and medical training exercises, which is causing the animals to live their lives full of fear and torture. Although, it is known that animal testing is wrong, there are limited regulations to stop it, so this topic can get to be very controversial. Background on a topic can change a person’s point of view because it gives knowledge that they might not have. More than 100 million animals suffer and die every year, but only 5% of the animals are protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (Peta, ProCon). Out of that 100 million, approximately 26 million of those animals are used for commercial and scientific testing (ProCon). The main
…show more content…
On this side of the topic is that testing wise it is either animals or humans, so it is better on animals so humans do not get injured. Many life-saving cures and treatments came from animal testing, because many of the animals that are used are very similar to humans (ProCon). For example, mice are 98% similar to humans, while chimpanzees are 99% similar to humans (ProCon). But people also look at this as “... it’s either animals, or us, that we have to trial the drugs on next” (Gale). Besides helping humans from the animal testing, the animals can also benefit. The American Veterinary Medical Association approves animal testing since, with some of the shots that are supposed to help humans, can also save their lives from rabies, leukemia, or tetanus (ProCon). It is very acceptable to experiment on animals because according to researchers, because the animals don’t have rights it is morally right to experiment on them (ProCon). With this stand, if animals were given rights than hunting would have to become outlawed, along with everybody having to become vegetarians (ProCon). Animals are treated really well or else the results will become unreliable and the entire testing process will have to be started over (ProCon). With this point of view, animals can be …show more content…
Although it seems that if a drug does not work, then it does not go on the store shelf, which is not always the case. If a product hurts an animal it could still be sold to consumers on the store shelves (Peta). And vice-versa, if a product works and is beneficial to the animals it can go on the shelves but when consumers buy it, the drug can end up hurting the human even though it worked on the animal (ProCon). “It seems that the animal died in vain because no direct benefit to humans occurred” (AAT). The cellular, metabolic, and anatomic systems of animals are really different from humans so the fact that they would be considered as good test subjects is really bad (ProCon). It is very unacceptable to experiment on animals because, “animals suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans” (ProCon). Meaning that human superiority leads to the exploitation of animals. Animal testing does not always work, because it is known that some medical breakthroughs with animal research can and could have been made without the use of animals (ProCon). Knowing that animals can have serious harm done to themselves during animal testing is horrible and changes the entire
On this side of the topic is that testing wise it is either animals or humans, so it is better on animals so humans do not get injured. Many life-saving cures and treatments came from animal testing, because many of the animals that are used are very similar to humans (ProCon). For example, mice are 98% similar to humans, while chimpanzees are 99% similar to humans (ProCon). But people also look at this as “... it’s either animals, or us, that we have to trial the drugs on next” (Gale). Besides helping humans from the animal testing, the animals can also benefit. The American Veterinary Medical Association approves animal testing since, with some of the shots that are supposed to help humans, can also save their lives from rabies, leukemia, or tetanus (ProCon). It is very acceptable to experiment on animals because according to researchers, because the animals don’t have rights it is morally right to experiment on them (ProCon). With this stand, if animals were given rights than hunting would have to become outlawed, along with everybody having to become vegetarians (ProCon). Animals are treated really well or else the results will become unreliable and the entire testing process will have to be started over (ProCon). With this point of view, animals can be …show more content…
Although it seems that if a drug does not work, then it does not go on the store shelf, which is not always the case. If a product hurts an animal it could still be sold to consumers on the store shelves (Peta). And vice-versa, if a product works and is beneficial to the animals it can go on the shelves but when consumers buy it, the drug can end up hurting the human even though it worked on the animal (ProCon). “It seems that the animal died in vain because no direct benefit to humans occurred” (AAT). The cellular, metabolic, and anatomic systems of animals are really different from humans so the fact that they would be considered as good test subjects is really bad (ProCon). It is very unacceptable to experiment on animals because, “animals suffer like humans do, so it is speciesism to experiment on them while we refrain from experimenting on humans” (ProCon). Meaning that human superiority leads to the exploitation of animals. Animal testing does not always work, because it is known that some medical breakthroughs with animal research can and could have been made without the use of animals (ProCon). Knowing that animals can have serious harm done to themselves during animal testing is horrible and changes the entire