Animal testing has been a part of our society since the early 1900s. And it appears to me, that not until around 40 years ago or so, people began to realize that testing animals was inhumane on many different levels. But because we are the human beings that we are, we still try to shy away from a lot of the negative consequences of animal testing. It is easier for us to push aside that which is bad and try only to look at the positive aspects. Yet, in my opinion, the cons outweigh the pros. Not only have millions of innocent animals perished due to the numerous experimentations that were completed in laboratories all over the United States and other parts of the world, but some of these experimentations have proven to be futile. In other
…show more content…
Among one of these people is Steve Siegal who wrote the article: “Animal Research is Unnecessary and Dangerous to Human Health”. Siegal brought up numerous points in his article, the most basic of these being as follows: “There is a basic immorality in forcing those weaker than us to be our testers” (Siegal 60). This simple statement in itself has such a powerful meaning. We do not need to dig any deeper in order to see that animal testing should be avoided, yet this statement does not suffice. We try to see past the immorality and try to do whatever may benefit us. Yet, Siegal has given evidence that there are holes in this notion. Are we actually benefitting from …show more content…
Goldberg, the author explores animal testing from a slightly different perspective. Goldberg acknowledges that sometimes animal testing can be beneficial, but he also goes into detail about other ways in which the same testing can be done with little or no use of whole living animals. The process of in vitro can be utilized in order to study different drugs on individual colonies of cells as opposed to whole organisms (Goldberg). This is really important in backing up the argument that animals should not be used as test subjects, especially if there is a way around
Among one of these people is Steve Siegal who wrote the article: “Animal Research is Unnecessary and Dangerous to Human Health”. Siegal brought up numerous points in his article, the most basic of these being as follows: “There is a basic immorality in forcing those weaker than us to be our testers” (Siegal 60). This simple statement in itself has such a powerful meaning. We do not need to dig any deeper in order to see that animal testing should be avoided, yet this statement does not suffice. We try to see past the immorality and try to do whatever may benefit us. Yet, Siegal has given evidence that there are holes in this notion. Are we actually benefitting from …show more content…
Goldberg, the author explores animal testing from a slightly different perspective. Goldberg acknowledges that sometimes animal testing can be beneficial, but he also goes into detail about other ways in which the same testing can be done with little or no use of whole living animals. The process of in vitro can be utilized in order to study different drugs on individual colonies of cells as opposed to whole organisms (Goldberg). This is really important in backing up the argument that animals should not be used as test subjects, especially if there is a way around