November 7, 2016
Strapped to a table with no means of escape, a rabbit squirms to avoid the toxic eye-drop being forced into its ultra-sensitive eye. It shrieks as the drops leave chemical burns on its eye, often blinding it in the process. It endures this pain, sometimes for over a week, as scientists poke and prod to rate the swelling and corneal opacity. All of this suffering is inflicted merely to determine if the product is acceptable for human use (James). “According to European commission data from 2011, about 11.5 million laboratory animals were used annually in the European Union…” (Törnqvist). This number only pertains to the testing done in one place, in only one year. Imagine if the …show more content…
People in favor of animal testing claim that because of animal testing, researchers have gained more extensive knowledge and made more advancements in medicine, biology, and disease treatment (Hajar). They fail to acknowledge that these advancements have come at a cost. Humans depended on unreliable test results which caused unforeseen harm to their health. Countless animals were harmed or died as a result of these experiments. Money has been poorly invested into these faulty tests, instead of investing it into advancing more effective, alternative methods. As opposed to testing the safety of a particular product on an animal, researchers are finding ways to use software and databases. By digging through data bases, they can find previous research on existing chemicals and past tests to make predictions (Anthes).With access to effective alternatives, the practice of animal testing can be greatly reduced if not potentially eliminated. “… [A]nimal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes, is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas, and existing literature demonstrates the unreliability of animal experimentation, thereby undermining scientific arguments in its favor” (AKHTAR). The benefits that have come from animal testing don’t nearly compare to the harm that it has inflicted …show more content…
"Animal testing: More than a cosmetic change." Nature, vol. 438, no. 7065, 2005, p. 144+. Academic OneFile. Accessed 5 Nov. 2016.
AKHTAR, AYSHA. "The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24.4 (2015): 407-19. ProQuest. Web. 5 Nov. 2016.
Anthes, Gary. "P&G Uses Data Mining to Cut Animal Testing; IT eliminates 80% of animal tests, removing source of social protests." Computerworld 6 Dec. 1999: 44. Computer Database. Web. 27 Oct. 2016.
"COSMETICS INDUSTRY LEADERS BACK MORAN BILL TO END ANIMAL TESTING." States News Service, 27 May 2014. Academic OneFile. Accessed 5 Nov. 2016.
Daston, George P., and Pauline McNamee. "Alternatives to toxicity testing in animals: challenges and opportunities." Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 8-1, 2005, p. 6+. Academic OneFile. Accessed 5 Nov. 2016.
Hajar, Rachel. "Animal testing and medicine." Heart Views, vol. 12, no. 1, 2011, p. 42. Academic OneFile. Accessed 5 Nov. 2016.
James, Carollyn. "A rabbit 's-eye view." Science '84 5 (1984): 88+. Academic OneFile. Web. 6 Dec. 2016.
Menache, Andre, and Candida Nastrucci. "REACH, animal testing, and the precautionary principle." Medicolegal and Bioethics, vol. 2, 2012, p. 13+. Academic OneFile. Accessed 5 Nov.