The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

"A righteous man has regard the life of his animal..." Proverbs 12:10 (1). Not even the word of God has stopped the animal cruelty that occurs in labs across the world. Despite all the proof and moral evidence provided, scientists continue to use defenseless animals for not only experiments for the good of mankind, but also for cosmetics tests and other nonessential products. Not only are these acts morally wrong, but they also have been, on many occasions, proven to be ineffective, and even though there are better, safer ways to experiment, animal cruelty continues to be the first choice when testing products. While scientists continue to run experiments and tests on innocent creatures, people across the world acknowledge how awful it is. Even …show more content…
Even though there’s a constant argument that animal testing is necessary, ninety five percent of products that are shown as promising in animal testing fail in trials on humans and about nineteen percent of ninety three drug effects have been properly detected by tests on animals (7). In a real life example, a medicine that was created for pregnant women to calm morning sickness, known as thalidomide, was estimated to have resulted in ten thousand birth defects and thousands of fetal deaths throughout the world, and, before it was released, it was tested on rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, hamsters, primates, cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine, and ferrets, all of which, in most cases, were absolutely fine (8). Among the arguments against unreliability is the fact that animal testing does show the side effects, although it may often minimally (9). However, what use is minimally shown effects if we ignore them when they aren’t a majority statistic? The researchers of thalidomide ignored the minimally shown effects, which ended in disaster for thousands of mothers and babies worldwide. Wouldn’t a more accurate test that always shows the side effects be