When it comes to whether animals should be used in animal testing, the problem that arises with this is the moral ethics that come with animal testing. Because of these morals, I decided that using animals for testing is wrong. This paper will give reasons why using animals is wrong and ways it can be changed to prevent animals from being used by research laboratories in companies just to see how humans might benefit from the process used in testing.
Why animals are used in testing, from a scientist’s perspective the reasons for animals being used in testing is because since animals have no cognitive ability and no moral judgement like humans do, then it is acceptable to conduct experiments on them. Another example is because the requirement …show more content…
A reason it is wrong for testing on these animals is the complications that arise with the testing of drugs. This problem arises when “about 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials”. (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Testing? 57) This failing has caused complications in human lives ever since scientists have used animals in testing. An example of this is the drug Vioxx, which was a drug that treated arthritis. Vioxx was first tested in monkeys with no side effects noticed. “When this drug was used in humans, it caused about 320,000 strokes and heart attacks and about 140,000 deaths worldwide”. (Arguments against animal testing) Another drug that was first tested using animals before it was released for commercial use was the “1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities”. (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Testing? 5) When comes to knowing what conditions animals used in testing endure these can range from animals experiencing lethal doses of chemicals, any kind of damage to an animal’s skin to watch the healing process, and keeping nocturnal animals in bright light for 24 hours a …show more content…
An example would be the cost difference between animal testing and an alternative known as in vitro. When it came to unscheduled DNA synthesis, in vitro testing costed $11,000 and animal testing costed $32,000, which was clearly a much cheaper method. As more tests were created the difference between the cost of animal testing and in vitro testing shows that testing on animals costs the government and company research laboratories lots of money. Statistics show that the National Institute of Health spends about 14 of their 31 billion dollars of their budget on animal testing
Why animals are used in testing, from a scientist’s perspective the reasons for animals being used in testing is because since animals have no cognitive ability and no moral judgement like humans do, then it is acceptable to conduct experiments on them. Another example is because the requirement …show more content…
A reason it is wrong for testing on these animals is the complications that arise with the testing of drugs. This problem arises when “about 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials”. (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Testing? 57) This failing has caused complications in human lives ever since scientists have used animals in testing. An example of this is the drug Vioxx, which was a drug that treated arthritis. Vioxx was first tested in monkeys with no side effects noticed. “When this drug was used in humans, it caused about 320,000 strokes and heart attacks and about 140,000 deaths worldwide”. (Arguments against animal testing) Another drug that was first tested using animals before it was released for commercial use was the “1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities”. (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Testing? 5) When comes to knowing what conditions animals used in testing endure these can range from animals experiencing lethal doses of chemicals, any kind of damage to an animal’s skin to watch the healing process, and keeping nocturnal animals in bright light for 24 hours a …show more content…
An example would be the cost difference between animal testing and an alternative known as in vitro. When it came to unscheduled DNA synthesis, in vitro testing costed $11,000 and animal testing costed $32,000, which was clearly a much cheaper method. As more tests were created the difference between the cost of animal testing and in vitro testing shows that testing on animals costs the government and company research laboratories lots of money. Statistics show that the National Institute of Health spends about 14 of their 31 billion dollars of their budget on animal testing