The Cons Of Animal Testing

Testing our remedies and medicines has become a necessity in America. Sadly these test frequently are conducted on defenseless animals. The tests often cause gnarly side effects and distress to the animals. Animal abuse is a barbaric practice and could easily be exchanged with a more modern method. “The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’ This statement, proclaimed by Jeremy Bentham, states the sad truth, that animals suffer while acting in animal testing. Animal testing is not voluntary, animals are poor test subjects, and there are more effective new methods to test medications. One problematic notion of animal testing could be that it is not voluntary. When dealing with medications that have …show more content…
One of these methods is known as vitro. Vitro, also known as glass testing, is the study of cell cultures in a petri dish (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?). This could be much drastically more accurate and humane compared to animal testing. Vitro helped guide to the discovery and creation of EpiDerm and ThinCert, or artificial layers of skin (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?). Computer models also would be more effective than testing animals. These tests will replace animal testing very soon (Animals in Research and Testing.). Although there are many cons to animal testing the counterargument that it saves human lives still drives its way into the …show more content…
As discussed in the final reason against animal testing, about different options to animal testing, there are many different ways to find more accurate information. Another counterargument could be that animal testing is considered highly regulated. This can be proved false by stating that ninety-five percent of animals used in tests are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?). The two main counterarguments can easily be