Renee Reed
Mrs. Williamson
English I
20 November 2017
Why Animal Testing is Wasteful In the past 100 years, the California Biomedical Research Association says, almost all medical developments are a denouement of testing that involves animals (“Animal Testing”). And, although this may be true, the question still remains: was (and is) there any alternative to testing of this nature and is it morally right to use animals in testing? To delve into this issue, one must analyze the logistics of research using animals and the awareness of animals to environmental stimuli. Although many believe that the only argument against animal testing is based on morality; realistically, it is illogical due to animal testing’s ineffectiveness and the cost of …show more content…
Their bodies respond to disease and treatment much as ours do,” made on page 12 of “Should we experiment on animals? Yes.” by Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford and Warwick universities and former head of the Medical Research Council. Although this may be true, this statement is contradicted by alternative evidence. As a matter of fact, 94% of drugs that are considered safe after thorough animal testing fail in human clinical trials (“Animal Testing”). On the other hand, some drugs that are ineffective, or dangerous to animals, have significant value to humans. An example of this is Aspirin, which is harmful to some species of animals but, to humans, proves to be extremely useful. Finally, not only can we say that animal testing is ineffective, but we can say that alternatives can produce more relevant results; as testing in a glass, such as a petri dish, can use human cells (“Animal Testing”). As a result, the use of human cells would be able to better predict a drug’s effect on a human than, say, an animal …show more content…
Therefore, those who support animal testing despite these obvious facts, proving testing to be ineffective and immoral, only show the nature of these people. Surveys done by Stephen R. Kellert of Yale University have shown that those who are younger and more educated tend to view animals with compassion, whereas those who are older or less educated see animals as resources (Mukerjee
Mrs. Williamson
English I
20 November 2017
Why Animal Testing is Wasteful In the past 100 years, the California Biomedical Research Association says, almost all medical developments are a denouement of testing that involves animals (“Animal Testing”). And, although this may be true, the question still remains: was (and is) there any alternative to testing of this nature and is it morally right to use animals in testing? To delve into this issue, one must analyze the logistics of research using animals and the awareness of animals to environmental stimuli. Although many believe that the only argument against animal testing is based on morality; realistically, it is illogical due to animal testing’s ineffectiveness and the cost of …show more content…
Their bodies respond to disease and treatment much as ours do,” made on page 12 of “Should we experiment on animals? Yes.” by Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford and Warwick universities and former head of the Medical Research Council. Although this may be true, this statement is contradicted by alternative evidence. As a matter of fact, 94% of drugs that are considered safe after thorough animal testing fail in human clinical trials (“Animal Testing”). On the other hand, some drugs that are ineffective, or dangerous to animals, have significant value to humans. An example of this is Aspirin, which is harmful to some species of animals but, to humans, proves to be extremely useful. Finally, not only can we say that animal testing is ineffective, but we can say that alternatives can produce more relevant results; as testing in a glass, such as a petri dish, can use human cells (“Animal Testing”). As a result, the use of human cells would be able to better predict a drug’s effect on a human than, say, an animal …show more content…
Therefore, those who support animal testing despite these obvious facts, proving testing to be ineffective and immoral, only show the nature of these people. Surveys done by Stephen R. Kellert of Yale University have shown that those who are younger and more educated tend to view animals with compassion, whereas those who are older or less educated see animals as resources (Mukerjee