3 reasons why animal testing should be banned essay

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.10: Animal Testing Should Be Banned

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 35854

• Nathan Nobis
• Morehouse College via Open Philosophy Press

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

“Animal testing” involves experimenting on animals to try to determine whether drugs and medical treatments are safe and effective for humans. It’s wrong and should be banned.

Why? First, and most obviously, drugs and medical procedures treat diseases, injuries, and other health problems. So, to see if a treatment works, a disease or injury must be created in animals. Understatement: this is often unpleasant. Heart attacks in dogs feel awful; bone cancers in mice are painful; pigs being burned, to test burn treatments, is agonizing. Animals living with the induced conditions is unpleasant also. And they are killed at the end of the experiments to study the treatments’ effects.

It’s now easy to see why animal testing is wrong: it violates basic principles of ethical research: it is maleficent, or harmful to the research subjects; it is not beneficial to them; it is forced on them since they don’t consent; and it is unjust in that animals are burdened with problems not their own. Research – at least with animals who are conscious, and so are able to be harmed or made worse off – is wrong for reasons that comparable human research would be wrong.

Some argue that the benefits to humans justify animal testing. But when one group benefits at the major expense of another group, that’s usually wrong. And how exactly might anyone know that humans benefit more than animals are harmed? And there is scientific evidence that animal testing often is not beneficial for humans and that clinical research, public health research, and technology-based research are more useful: see the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Americans for Medical Advancement for more information.

Some claim there are “no alternatives” to animal testing, that it is “necessary.” But there are alternatives (mentioned above) and it’s not literally necessary that anyone do it: they can refrain. But suppose someone wanted to rob a bank and needed a getaway car: there is “no alternative” to a car and so it is “necessary” for the robbery. Does that make using the car OK? No. Even if something is “necessary” and there are “no alternatives” to doing it to achieve a particular end, that doesn’t make doing the action right: the end determines that.

Finally, some say that this reasoning is all beside the point: if your child was dying and animal testing would save him or her, wouldn’t you want the testing done? Many would and that’s an understandable feeling. But it’s unlikely that animal experimentation would help their child much: other methods are likely more fruitful. And more importantly, if my child were dying and I tried to experiment on my neighbor’s children to try to save my own child, that would be wrong.

Why? Simply because those children would be harmed and treated as mere things to be used (and abused) for my and my child’s benefit, which they are not. Since those reasons apply to many animals experimented upon, animal testing is also wrong.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?

The E.P.A. recently said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals. Do you support the decision?

By Natalie Proulx

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

On Sept. 10, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals, a decision that was hailed by animal rights groups but criticized by environmentalists and researchers who said the practice was necessary to rigorously safeguard human health.

What are your thoughts on animal testing? Do you think it is ever justified? Why or why not?

In “ E.P.A. Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing ,” Mihir Zaveri, Mariel Padilla and Jaclyn Peiser write about the decision:

The E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency plans to reduce the amount of studies that involve mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025, and to eliminate the studies entirely by 2035, though some may still be approved on a case-by-case basis. The agency said it would also invest $4.25 million in projects at four universities and a medical center that are developing alternate ways of testing chemicals that do not involve animals. “We can protect human health and the environment by using cutting-edge, ethically sound science in our decision-making that efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing,” Mr. Wheeler said in a memo announcing the changes. The E.P.A. has for decades required testing on a variety of animals — including rats, dogs, birds and fish — to gauge their toxicity before the chemicals can be bought, sold or used in the environment.

The article continues:

The practice of testing with animals has long prompted complex debates driven by passionate views on morality and scientific imperative. Reaction to Tuesday’s announcement was no different. “We are really excited as this has been something we’ve wanted for quite some time,” said Kitty Block, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, an animal protection organization. “The alternatives are the future. They’re more efficient and save lives.” Kathleen Conlee, the vice president of animal research issues at the Humane Society, said the E.P.A.’s move is “broad-sweeping and significant.” “This is the first time a government agency has made such a commitment and timelined its specific goals along the way,” Ms. Conlee said. “There’s been a lot of positive action among other federal agencies, but we want to see all government agencies take this step.” Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco’s school of medicine, said current alternatives to animal testing are somewhat useful. But Dr. Woodruff, who worked at the E.P.A. from 1994 to 2007, said only animal testing — a process honed over decades — was robust enough to gauge chemicals’ impacts on people of various ages, genetics and health backgrounds. “I definitely think we should be investing more in this research,” she said, referring to alternative testing. “But it’s really not ready for making decisions yet — at least the way that E.P.A. is making decisions.” Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said she was very concerned by the announcement. Dr. Sass said animals were still necessary to study chronic conditions, like cancer and infertility. Cells in a petri dish cannot yet replace whole living systems, she said. “The E.P.A.’s deadline is arbitrary,” Dr. Sass said. “Our interest isn’t in speed, it’s getting it right. We want proper animal testing because we don’t want harmful chemicals to end up in our food, air and water.”

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Do you support the decision by the E.P.A. to move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals? Or do you think animal testing is still necessary to regulate harmful substances that can have adverse effects on humans?

How important is it to you that the toxicity of chemicals and other environmental contaminants is rigorously studied and regulated? Why? Do you think not testing on animals hinders those efforts?

The Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs are among the government agencies that still rely on animal testing. Do you think animal testing is important in these sectors or any others? Why or why not?

Do you think animal testing is ever justified? If so, what should be the criteria for when, how and on what animals testing is done?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

• Latest news and updates /
• current page Ten reasons why we should turn our backs on animal testing

Ten reasons why we should turn our backs on animal testing

Published on 24 August 2017

Updated: 17 December 2021

Alternatives report calls on scientists to end cosmetics tests on animals

This week, our new report on the alternatives available to animal testing was presented to scientists at the  10th World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences  in Seattle.

The report, funded by The Body Shop, lists alternatives to cosmetics testing on animals, and outlines how they are not only more ethical but also more reliable, faster and cheaper than the animal tests they replace.

According to our report, here are  TEN  reasons why making animals suffer to bring a new eye shadow or cologne into the world belongs in the past:

• Animal tests are already being replaced . Every year the development of alternatives to animal testing is growing. Thanks to advancements in science, animals are being replaced in the testing of cosmetics as well as chemicals and drugs.
• There are simple alternatives available . Alternatives to animal testing for cosmetics include tests on simple organisms like bacteria, or tissue and skin cells donated from people. Some tests can even be carried out on computers or by using chemicals.
• Millions of animals are suffering and dying . Half a million animals are used in cosmetics testing globally every year. It’s time for the cruelty to stop.
• People want animal testing to end . This year Cruelty Free International and The Body Shop joined forces to launch a global campaign for a worldwide ban on animal testing on cosmetics products and ingredients. So far over  two million people have signed our petition  calling for an end to the cruelty everywhere and forever.
• There is a global trend towards cruelty free cosmetics . Countries all around the world are phasing out animal testing for cosmetics and switching to innovative alternatives. Bans already exist in 39 countries (including the EU) and are being considered in Australia, Brazil and the US.
• Shoppers prefer to buy cosmetics that have not been tested on animals . A whopping 79% of people said they would be likely to swap to a different brand if they discovered that animals were forced to suffer for the cosmetics they used.
• The alternatives to animal testing are much quicker . Tests on tissue and cells in laboratories for skin and eye irritation can be carried out in one day. The same tests carried out on live rabbits takes from two to three weeks.
• Alternatives to animal testing are much cheaper.  Tests using computer models can be run at very little cost, saving thousands of pounds. Some cell-based tests cost as little as £500 compared to cruel tests on animals which take two years and cost approximately £1 million.
• Alternatives to animal experiments are more effective . The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. While a combination of chemical and human cell tests has been shown to accurately predict human skin reactions 90% of the time, skin irritation tests on rabbits only predict human reactions 60% of the time.  
• Celebrities have joined the fight against animal testing . Our high-profile friends are telling the world it’s time to end cosmetics testing on animals, including  Game of Thrones star Maisie Williams who is backing our campaign with the Body Shop for a global ban on cosmetics animal testing.

Dr Katy Taylor ,  Director of Science & Regulatory Affairs at Cruelty Free International , said: “The public desperately wants to see an end to the suffering of animals used to test cosmetics. With better and more sophisticated alternatives now available, governments and decision-makers should take action to end the horrific practice once and for all.”

Cruelty Free International and The Body Shop are aiming to deliver a petition – with a target of 8 million signatures – to the United Nations in 2018, to request an international convention banning cosmetics testing on animals everywhere and forever. If you agree that cosmetics experiments on animals are cruel and it’s time for them to stop,  please sign the petition

Animal Testing: History and Arguments Essay

In general, animal testing is allowed all over the world. Some countries impose certain restrictions on that matter, some – do not introduce any restrictions at all. However, even those countries that have certain laws prohibiting tests on animals do not take into account the fact that animals are living creatures and must not suffer for the sake of an experiment. Moreover, in most facilities and laboratories, animals are kept in cages, thereby having absolutely no freedom. Most of the experiments performed on animals bring them suffering, lead to disability, and even death. This inhumane treatment of animals does not justify any cause (Haugen, 2000). Thus, the main reason why these experiments must be stopped is that, according to the statistics, the majority of them are ineffective and inaccurate.

History of Animal Testing

Animal testing has a long history. Considering the fact that animals are living creatures, medical experiments on them were already conducted at least three thousand years ago. The first records mentioning the experiments on animals date back to the fourth century BCE in Ancient Greece (Murnaghan, 2017). Thus, in ancient times, it was a widely adopted practice to perform dissections of animals in order to understand how to make surgical operations on humans.

Since the 18 th century, with the development of medicine, the frequency of animal testing has significantly increased. Moreover, if a couple of centuries ago, there were only single experiments that were performed by separate scientists, now, it has developed into the large industry that catches animals in the wild and uses them as guinea pigs (Scutti, 2013). Thus, although there are many innovative technologies that can serve as better alternatives to animal testing, people are still reluctant to change the current state of affairs.

Despite animal testing being rather an old practice, ethical considerations on that matter also occurred quite a long time ago (Scutti, 2013). For example, in the 17 th century, a psychologist Edmund O’Meara stated that animal testing was unnecessary, as it often gave inaccurate results. In this respect, he provided an example regarding vivisection that, as he claimed, placed the body of an animal in an unnatural state, in which it endured a lot of pain that was both cruel and gave false results.

The first animal protection law was established in Great Britain in 1822. A significant milestone in the history of animal protection legislation was the introduction of the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876 in Great Britain. This law was promoted by Charles Darwin who, despite being a biologist and a scientist, was against vivisection. In the 1860s, the movements against animal testing occurred in the USA. As a result, Henry Bergh established the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866. After that, the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) was founded in 1883 (Haugen, 2000). Thus, the end of the 19 th century was the time when many articles were written, and campaigns were started calling for terminating the experiments on animals.

However, at the beginning of the 20 th century, the tendency of releasing laws about animal protection changed. Unfortunately, the efforts of antivivisectionists to promote their campaigns to make the US government to ban animal testing failed due to the overall support of such experiments by the public, which was assured by the organizations who performed these experiments that animals were kept in good conditions, bred well, and injected with anaesthetics in those operations that could cause them much pain. Therefore, only in the 1960s, the efforts of antivivisectionists were partially justified, with the release of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966 (Haugen, 2000). Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.

Nowadays, there are a great number of organizations that advocate for stopping using animals in the experiments. Although the overall effectiveness of their campaigns is quite low, they have managed to achieve some positive results concerning the problem of animal testing (Murnaghan, 2017). Additionally, considering the current tendency of the active development of various technologies that can easily substitute experiments on animals, there is hope that soon the animal testing industry will cease to exist.

Animal Testing Is Cruel

The first argument against animal testing is that it is simply cruel. People must understand that animals are the same living creature as them and can feel both psychological and physical pain in the same way as humans. Thus, in the case of experimenting on animals, the ethical and humane aspects of the issue must prevail and give people a stimulus to seek for other ways of studying diseases that can be much better.

Animal Testing and Its Types

First of all, it is necessary to describe the types of animal testing in order to understand the degree of the cruelty of these experiments. In general, animal testing is the process of experimenting on animals where they usually undergo various medical procedures which cause them suffering or even death. These experiments are usually aimed at finding a cure to some disease that humans and certain animals have in common or at exploring how a biological organism works. During the experiments, scientists usually keep animals in cages and use them in laboratories where they harm them on purpose (“What is animal testing,” 2016). Moreover, there are certain kinds of experiments that cause animals a lot of pain, and, in many of them, animals die.

The most common type of an experiment on animals is feeding them with certain substances and injecting them with experimental medications. After the procedure is completed, scientists observe the effects that these substances have caused. In fact, the result is often unpredictable, and animals can die a horrible death with much pain. Another type of experiments is exposing animals to toxic substances and radiation. These experiments are primarily aimed at discovering the effects that radiation and certain chemicals can have on a biological body. Similarly, such experiments make animals suffer (“What is animal testing,” 2016). Moreover, if animals survive after such experiments, the damage that radiation and chemicals have caused to them is often permanent, and they will live the rest of their lives suffering.

One more type of experiments on animals is dissecting animals while they are still alive. Certainly, during this operation, they are under anesthetics, but it does not justify the result that they get after the procedure is completed. The main reason for these experiments is to find out how the internal parts of the biological body work. This operation usually involves removing internal organs, pumping out blood, and excising parts of tissues, which makes animals cripples afterwards. Additionally, there is one more type of an experiment that is usually practiced in laboratories. This is a psychological experiment that involves placing animals in situations and conditions which cause them to feel fear, anxiety, or depression. Such experiments are usually aimed at identifying the principles of animals’ behavior and comparing it to that of humans (“The five worst animal experiments,” 2014). Nevertheless, after these experiments, animals usually become very aggressive and cannot normally function in their animal “society”.

Laws and Animal Testing

According to most religious laws, animal testing is forbidden, as they are defined as the same creatures as humans. Certainly, animals are not as smart as humans, and their perception of reality is different, but they have similar bodies and experience similar feelings. Therefore, before making horrible experiments on animals, humans must think what it would be like if they were experimented on (“The Muslim view on animal,” 2017). Thus, animals have the same right to live their full lives as humans.

Although human laws impose a certain restriction regarding the experiments on animals, they are not enough, as they still allow people to torture them in the experiments. According to European legislation, all vertebrate animals including reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals and only some invertebrates such as octopuses are considered “animals”, on which it is prohibited to experiment (“Treatment of animals,” 2016). In the USA, the situation is worse and such creatures as mice, amphibians, birds, fish, and rats are not defined as “animals”, and scientists can freely perform any experiments on them that they want.

The system of experimenting on animals has grown into a multi-million dollar industry that has many facilities and laboratories around the world. They also have special facilities aimed at breeding animals specifically for testing. In these facilities, animals usually live in bad conditions being imprisoned and forcibly fed. Using wild-caught animals is prohibited in Europe and in some other countries, but it is allowed in other countries of the world. It is usually forbidden to use such domestic animals as dogs and cats in experiments, but, unfortunately, not in all countries (McKay, 2016). Even monkeys that resemble humans the most are often used in experiments.

In terms of animal suffering, The EU even introduced a scale which measures the degree of suffering experienced by animals in a particular experiment. Thus, they distinguish between “minor”, “moderate”, and “severe” suffering inflicted on animals. For example, in 2012, in the UK, more than 60% of permissions were granted by the British government allowing animals to be undergone from moderate to severe suffering. Reportedly, approximately 75% of the experiments were performed without injecting the animals with anesthetics. Moreover, quite a big percentage of those experiments required animals to die (Scheler, 2017). For instance, the tests for various vaccines and chemicals resulted in the death of more than 50% of the animals involved in these experiments.

Animal Testing Is Ineffective

The second argument against animal testing is that it is often ineffective, as the results received from the experiments can be inaccurate. There are many reasons for this, but, the most important point is that in such science as medicine, the information must be reliable; otherwise, there is always a risk that a particular medicine will cause unpleasant effects in humans or even be life-threatening.

Examples of the Ineffectiveness of Animal Testing

In addition to being cruel and inhumane, the experiments on animals often turn out to be ineffective. The main reason for this is that the animal organism either responds differently to many life-threatening diseases that humans suffer from or is completely immune to them. For example, animals do not suffer from most heart diseases, some types of cancer and HIV, they do not have Parkinson’s disease and the majority of psychiatric diseases such as schizophrenia. However, some of these diseases can be artificially induced in them for the sake of an experiment that allegedly shows how these diseases can be cured in humans. Thus, the most important argument is that in these experiments, people usually do not take into consideration other factors that are inherent only in humans and affect the behavior of diseases (“Cruelty to animals,” 2017). These factors include socio-economic conditions, genetics, psychological issues, and personal experience.

Indeed, according to the statistics, quite a great number of experiments on animals, that were promising in terms of finding a cure to some diseases, turned out to be ineffective for humans. In this respect, the end does not justify the means, as animals suffered for nothing. As a result, animals’ lives along with the time and money were wasted, and no effective treatment was developed (“Arguments against animal,” 2016). In addition, as it can be seen, after the decades of animal testing aimed at finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, AIDS, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and cancer, there is still no reliable cure and effective treatment for them.

Thus, according to the statistics, the majority of experiments on animals that show promising results, turn out to be ineffective when it comes to humans. Moreover, the experimenting on smaller animals such as rabbits, mice, and rats showed an even lower rate of success, primarily because their organisms differ from that of a human (Scheler, 2017). Additionally, statistics show that only 20% of experimental drugs used on animals are effective in humans. In terms of testing the safety of drugs, only 45% of experiments work for humans.

According to the overall results of the experiments on animals conducted all over the world, approximately 120 million animals are used in them, and only about 30 new medications are approved every year, which is far from being efficient. The investment of the U.S. drug industry in the experiments equals $50 billion each year, but the approval rate has not changed since the 1960s. Among those drugs that are approved, not all of them are completely effective for everyone due to different individual reactions (McKay, 2016). Overall, for the last 20 years, only five percent of experiments performed on animals resulted in a successful approval of treatments.

Sometimes, animal testing can be dangerous even for humans. A vivid example is a drug called Vioxx that was used for arthritis. After successful experiments on monkeys and on some other mammals, this drug was approved for human usage. However, Vioxx turned out to be dangerous for humans causing more than 300,000 heart attacks all over the world, almost half of which resulted in the lethal outcome. Another example is fialuridine, a Hepatitis B drug that was prohibited for having caused liver damage resulting in five deaths. However, this drug had been several times tested on animals before. One more illustrative example is a monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) that was tested on human volunteers. As a result, it caused an allergic reaction, after which the volunteers were hospitalized (Haugen, 2000). However, this drug had been used on monkeys several hundred times before, and no side effects were identified.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Banning animal testing does not necessarily mean that the development of medications that can provide treatment for incurable diseases will stop, as there are always alternatives, which can improve progress in medicine and add humaneness to the science. Thus, with technological developments in the sphere of science, the number of alternatives to animal testing is increasing. In this respect, the main problem is that most people are reluctant to use new technologies (“Animal testing 101,” 2016). Instead, they tend to stick to more conservative and traditional methods that certainly involve animal testing.

Another obstacle in the process of adoption of these new methods is bureaucracy. There are a lot of organizations and charities that advocate for the prohibition of animal testing, and they can accelerate the process of implementation of these innovations.

In terms of the alternatives, there are several of them that are very effective. The first alternative is growing cells and other organic material in laboratories. Nowadays, almost any type of a human cell can be created in a laboratory. These cells are used in the creation of special devices that are called “organs-on-chips”. These devices can be used for experiments instead of animals. There were already several successful experiments conducted on these devices that involved observing the behavior of diseases and the effects of drugs (“Alternatives to animal,” 2016). Additionally, cell cultures are now the primary focus regarding the development of treatment to such diseases as cancer, AIDS, kidney diseases, and sepsis.

Another alternative to animal testing, which is not new though, is human tissues. Human tissues that can be provided by volunteers or extracted from dead bodies can be used in some kinds of experiments. Moreover, there are many operations such as cosmetic surgery, biopsy, and transplants that can serve as a reliable source of human tissues. Using brain tissues from dead bodies has also lead to a better understanding of such diseases as Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis.

One more alternative to animal testing, the importance of which has been increasingly growing for the past several decades, is computer models. Indeed, the most powerful contemporary computers in the world are able to simulate many processes that would occur in a human body after taking a particular experimental medication. These virtual experiments are primarily based on the already existing data about a particular disease and its behavior in the human body and on mathematical, chemical, and physical laws integrated into this program of simulation (“Alternatives to animal,” 2016). Certainly, now, computer sphere is not powerful enough for complex virtual experiments, but taking into account the rate of its growth, it will be soon.

Arguments for Animal Testing

Despite all the evidence listed above and showing that animal testing is both a cruel and ineffective practice, it still has its defenders. For example, the IQ Consortium DruSafe argues that nonclinical animal testing is crucial when it comes to assessing the risks of developing new drugs (Mangipudy, 2014). They believe that there are no in vitro or in silico systems developed enough to accurately emulate all of the complexities of the human organism (Mangipudy, 2014). Further, even with the eventual development of these surrogate systems, their ability to predict all of the negative effects from unique toxicities is still under question. In general, many people, while denouncing animal testing for cosmetic purposes, still insist that it is an unavoidable necessity for improving human health. Just as well, many people consider animal testing to be a necessary evil – they agree about it being cruel while saying that without it there would be no treatments like insulin, vaccines, HIV drugs and so on and that it helped us get better understanding of diseases like malaria or hemophilia (Murnaghan, 2017).

While it is true that animal testing has proven to be useful in the past, it does not mean that we need to stop developing new methods of testing and keep it around animals. If we consider ourselves to be a truly evolved species, we need to abandon any sort of animal cruelty completely and find ways to benefit ourselves without causing harm to anyone or anything. Furthermore, the effectiveness of alternative methods of testing is not to be underestimated, considering that more and more of them are being researched and improved with each passing year. These alternatives, both with their quantity and their quality, clearly highlight the obsolescence of animal testing and the need for replacing it with more humane and harmless methods.

Thus, as it can be seen from the statistics, animal testing is cruel and in most cases, not effective. Therefore, it must be banned, especially now, when there are many innovative technologies that can be used as alternatives. Moreover, these alternatives have already shown great promises in being much more efficient than animal testing. Fortunately, the current tendency shows that these alternatives will be adopted in the near future, thereby bringing the end to violent experiments on animals.

Alternatives to animal testing . (2016). Web.

Animal testing 101 . (2016). Web.

Arguments against animal testing . (2016). Web.

Cruelty to animals in laboratories . (2017). Web.

The five worst animal experiments happening right now . (2014). Web.

Harm and suffering . (2017). Web.

Haugen, D. M. (2000). Animal experimentation . San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.

McKay, M. (2016). The cruelty of lab animal testing. Web.

Murnaghan, I. (2017). Background and history of animal testing. Web.

The Muslim view on animal testing . (2017). Web.

Scheler, S. (2017). Everything you need to know about animal testing. Web.

Scutti, S. (2013). Animal testing: A long, unpretty history. Web.

Treatment of animals . (2016). Web.

What is animal testing? (2016). Web.

Mangipudy, R., Burkhardt, J., & Kadambi, V. J. (2014). Use of animals for toxicology testing is necessary to ensure patient safety in pharmaceutical development. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology , 70 (2), 439-441.

Murnaghan, I. (2017). Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 19). Animal Testing: History and Arguments. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-history-and-arguments/

"Animal Testing: History and Arguments." IvyPanda , 19 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-history-and-arguments/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Animal Testing: History and Arguments'. 19 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Animal Testing: History and Arguments." January 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-history-and-arguments/.

1. IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: History and Arguments." January 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-history-and-arguments/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: History and Arguments." January 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-history-and-arguments/.

• Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing
• Animal Testing: History and Ethics
• Solid Waste in the Arabian Gulf Reduction
• California and Water Shortage
• Ways of Producing and Consuming Material Resources
• Environmental Regulation of Oil and Gas
• Chemicals on Birds’ Populations Effects

Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Students are often asked to write an essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Animal testing is unkind.

Animal testing often causes pain and suffering to animals. They are kept in small cages and are used for experiments that can hurt them. This is not fair because animals feel pain just like we do. We should not make them suffer for our benefits.

Not Always Useful

Many times, tests on animals do not give results that are helpful for humans. This is because animals and humans are different. So, the pain we cause to animals may not even help us in the end.

Better Options Exist

Nowadays, we have other ways to test products that do not involve hurting animals. Scientists can use computer models or grow human cells in labs. These methods can give us good information without causing harm to any living creature.

250 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Animal testing: why it should be banned.

Animal testing refers to scientific experiments using non-human animals as subjects. For many years, animals have been used in experiments to study diseases, test medicines, and explore other scientific questions. However, there are many reasons why this practice should be banned.

Pain and Suffering

Animals experience pain and suffering just like humans do. In animal testing, animals are often subjected to painful procedures, such as surgery, injections, and exposure to harmful chemicals. They may be kept in cramped and unsanitary conditions and denied proper food, water, and veterinary care.

Unreliable Results

Animal testing results are often unreliable when applied to humans. Animals may respond differently to drugs and treatments than humans do, leading to inaccurate or misleading findings. Additionally, the stress and fear experienced by animals during testing can affect the results, making them even less reliable.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Today, there are many alternative methods available that can replace animal testing. These methods include computer simulations, cell cultures, and human tissue models. These alternatives are not only more humane, but they are often more accurate and reliable than animal testing.

Ethical Concerns

Animal testing raises serious ethical concerns. Many people believe that it is wrong to harm or kill animals for the sake of scientific research. Animals are sentient beings who deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.

In light of the pain and suffering caused to animals, the unreliability of results, the availability of alternatives, and the ethical concerns, it is clear that animal testing should be banned. It is time to move towards a more humane and ethical approach to scientific research.

500 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

What is animal testing.

Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments and other scientific studies. Animals are used to test products such as medicines, cosmetics, and chemicals, as well as to study diseases and develop new treatments.

Why is Animal Testing Bad?

Animal testing is bad because it causes pain and suffering to animals. Animals are often subjected to painful procedures, such as surgery, injections, and exposure to toxic chemicals. They may also be deprived of food, water, and sleep.

Animals Are Not Like Humans

The results of animal tests are not always accurate because animals are not like humans. They have different bodies, different metabolisms, and different immune systems. This means that drugs and chemicals that are safe for animals may not be safe for humans.

There Are Alternatives to Animal Testing

There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. These alternatives include computer models, cell cultures, and human tissue samples. These alternatives are often more cost-effective than animal testing and do not cause pain and suffering to animals.

Animal Testing is Cruel and Unnecessary

Animal testing is a cruel and unnecessary practice. There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. We should ban animal testing and replace it with these alternatives.

Animal testing is a cruel and unnecessary practice. It causes pain and suffering to animals and is often inaccurate. There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. We should ban animal testing and replace it with these alternatives.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Which Economic System Is The Best And Why
• Essay on Where Do You See Yourself In The Future
• Essay on Whatsapp Boon Or Bane

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Animal Testing Pros and Cons: Arguments For & Against It

There’s a heated debate in the world of science. And no, not a discussion about theories or hypotheses but about ethics. Animal testing has been a staple of research and studies for a long time. Now animal activists are campaigning to end the use of animals in laboratories.

On the one hand, we have scientists who support experiments on animals to advance science. On the other hand, we have animal activists who feel that testing on animals is unethical.

It’s not an easy debate, though, because, as is with everything, there are pros and cons of animal testing. Yes, animals suffer and are even killed in the pursuit of knowledge. Still, one can’t deny what the world has gained from animal testing.

So how about we dive deep into animal testing pros and cons and see which side of the debate we want to be on.

Animal Testing Pros and Cons

Each side of the debate has its points. About 100 million animals take part in research every year. Because of that, for some people, this is a high-stakes fight for what is right but for others, it’s an unfortunate but acceptable price to pay for science.

So, which side has the right idea? Without further ado, here are animal testing pros and cons.

Pros and Benefits of Animal Testing

1. enable medical advancements.

Statistics from the California Biomedical Research Association show that almost every medical breakthrough in the past 100 years results from animal experiments. This is probably one of the most significant benefits of animal testing.

Thanks to animal research, we have had significant advances in treatment for conditions such as cystic fibrosis, polio, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, childhood leukemia, and more. Did you know that pacemakers and anesthetics were developed using animal testing? One famous medical discovery is insulin which was discovered through an experiment in which dogs had their pancreas removed.

2. Animals have physiological and biological similarities to human

Some animals share a surprisingly high amount of DNA with human beings. For instance, chimpanzees share 99% of DNA with humans, while mice share 98%. In addition to similar DNA, humans and some animals have the same organs, bloodstream, and central nervous system. This is why such animals get affected by the same diseases and health conditions as us.

These animals are used in lab tests as they allow scientists to predict how human beings might react to certain drugs or vaccines.

3. Help ensure product safety

Let’s say you’ve bought a can of insect repellant at the store. How do companies ensure you don’t suffer side effects when spraying it in your room? Well, they test the product on animals to ensure that there are no unpleasant surprises for customers.

One of the advantages of animal testing is that it protects humans from unsafe medical treatments. Before medical products are approved for the mass market, plenty of research and testing must be done to ensure they’re safe for use.

4. Allow for examination of a complete life cycle

Human beings live an estimated 70 years. If a scientist wanted to study the entire life cycle, it would be a logistics nightmare to study people because of their long lives.

On the other hand, most animals have really short life cycles. Animals like mice tend to live two-three years. This makes it possible for researchers to study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan or even across several generations of mice. Such long-term studies contribute highly to cancer research.

5. Less legal hurdles to cross

Simply put, animals don’t have the same rights or cognitive abilities as we do. Scientists must jump through many legal hurdles to experiment on humans, including getting consent forms. Numerous laws inhibit testing on human beings, especially when the experiments involve genetic manipulation.

Laws like the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki restrict human trials before animal tests are done.

6. Animals also benefit from the research

Animal testing doesn’t just benefit human beings. The animals themselves gain from it. Vaccines that have saved millions of animals were created using animal testing. It has even brought certain species from the brink of extinction.

Animal research has provided vaccines and cures for rabies, infectious hepatitis virus, anthrax, feline leukemia, and canine parvovirus.

Therefore, animal research isn’t only beneficial to us humans. Still, animal testing findings help veterinaries know how to treat our pets when they’re unwell.

7. Lack of proper alternatives

A list of animal testing pros is incomplete without mentioning the main reason animal testing exists. For the longest time, no adequate alternative could match the complex systems found within humans and animals. There’s no other living creature with the nearest human-like anatomic form than animals. For this reason, researchers feel they had no choice but to use animals to better understand the human body and create practical products.

You may argue that computer models have made tremendous advancements. While that’s true, for the models to work efficiently in researching the endocrine system, the immune system, and the central nervous system, they’d need reliable information obtained from animal testing.

Learn more about animal testing alternatives.

8. There’s more value in using animals for research than as food for humans

We eat more animals than we use for animal testing. Can’t quite comprehend it? To illustrate it better, animal testing facts show that for every chicken used in research, 340 more are used as food.

So when you think about the medical advancement and progress made from animal testing, we’re better off using a few animals for experimentation than eating a whole lot more.

Cons of Animal Testing

Now let’s take a look at the cons of animal testing.

1. It’s an expensive process

One of the significant negatives of animal testing is just how expensive it is. It costs significantly more money to use animals in experiments than alternatives to testing, such as in-vitro testing methods.

Animal testing requires plenty of workforce and expensive equipment, leading to spending billions of dollars each year in this field. Animal experiments last a long time too, which adds to the overall cost.

When you think about the financial burden countries have to bear, it becomes questionable whether animal testing really provides enough benefits.

2. Inaccurate results

92% of drugs don’t make it past animal testing trials. Most of the products tested on animals don’t even make it to supermarkets. This is because, despite the similarities between humans and other mammals, the differences are still significant enough to give unreliable results. With such highly inaccurate results, putting animals through such torture seems wasteful.

3. Animal welfare laws exemptions

Most research projects are unregulated by the government. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) protects a small section of animals, such as dogs and cats. This means that the rest are not covered by animal protection laws. The Act leaves out over 25 million animals at risk of abuse and neglect yearly.

4. Cruel treatment

A lot of research projects cause physical and psychological harm to animals. Sometimes the animals are deprived of food and water. Sometimes, they’re subjected to painful procedures that inflict them with burns, wounds, and pain to test. In other experiments, animals are injected with lethal doses of certain chemicals to determine how much can kill them.

Even worse are the experiments that kill the animals to understand death. For many people, none of the animal testing pros beat this animal testing con.

Related article : Should testing on animals be banned?

5. Ineffective results

Some drugs and products are harmful to animals but beneficial to humans. The reverse is also true. A good example is Aspirin which was almost shelved due to the destructive reactions it caused in animal subjects. Another example is thalidomide which passed animal tests but caused congenital disabilities in human beings.

6. There are useful alternatives

Thanks to scientific innovation, alternatives to animal testing exist today. Computer modeling, robotics, 3-D modeling, in-vitro testing , and even human volunteers are all acceptable replacements. Over time, other alternatives are being invented and refined for use. With the existence of such options, shouldn’t we abandon animal testing for good?

7. Demand for cruelty-free products

Cruelty-free products are becoming very popular. It’s estimated that the cruelty-free cosmetics market could reach $10 billion by 2024. Many countries are banning animal tests forcing companies to turn to alternatives. This popularity is bound to grow as time goes on.

Related article: Animal Testing In Makeup and Cosmetics

Animal testing is one of the most controversial aspects of modern-day science. As you can see, animal testing pros and cons are heavily debatable depending on the side you’re on. Despite the advantages of animal testing, the enormous weight of the animal testing cons, and the existence of reliable alternatives, there’s little reason to allow this practice to continue.

You Might Also Like:

• Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned: 7 Reasons It Has To Stop

Hi, I hope you enjoyed reading this article.

If you are looking for more ways to live an eco-conscious lifestyles, then check out our complete guide here.

Thanks for stopping by - Jamie

Popular Posts

How To Save Water in the Home

Green Cleaning: The Ultimate Guide

Zero Waste Living Guide

Ethical & Sustainable Clothing Guide

105 Ways To Be More Eco Friendly

Recent Posts

• Join NAVS at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair
• Honor World Day for Animals in Laboratories with Your Support
• Unveiling the Hidden Realities of Animal Research: A Call for Transparency and Change
• NAVS and Beagle Freedom Project – Together We’re Making a Difference
• In Memory of Steven Wise
• February 2024
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• January 2023
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• November 2021
• October 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021
• December 2020
• November 2020
• October 2020
• September 2020
• August 2020
• February 2020
• Uncategorized

Five Reasons to End Animal Testing

Dr. Thomas Hartung, a well-known toxicologist at Johns Hopkins University and advocate for the development of alternatives to the use of animals, as well as a mentor to a current NAVS/IFER fellowship recipient , recently published an article in ALTEX summarizing the main limitations of experimenting on animals. As Hartung notes, “[Animal experiments] come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated.”

Following are five reasons why scientists should stop relying so heavily on animal models:

• Animal experiments are not very reproducible . This often stems from lack of bias-reducing measures, poorly planned experiments, inappropriate statistical tests, poor reporting on animal attrition (why animals are dropped from studies) and poor reporting of pain relief in lab animals.
• Animal experiments are expensive and time consuming. Hartung notes that “costs and duration of toxicological studies are clearly prohibitive to satisfy societal safety needs,” in large part because animals are experimented on over a long period of time, during which researchers collect and analyze a lot of data to ensure that they are not missing any harmful effects. Using other approaches, such as cell-based models, could help scientists get results faster and cheaper.
• There are ethical concerns with animal experimentation. What entitles humans to experiment on animals and inflict pain upon them?
• Animal experiments are not even predictive of other animal species, let alone humans. Experiments performed in rats do not predict what happens in mice. Experiments in one strain of mice may not predict what is seen in another strain. Therefore, we shouldn’t assume that animals will be able to accurately predict what happens in humans.
• Animal models do not reflect human diversity . Even if animals could be predictive, to  which humans  would the data be accurately applied, considering the differences among humans?

Some in the scientific community have suggested investing more time and effort to improve the design of animal experiments, or even the animal models themselves, to address some of the issues raised above. But these resources would pay much higher dividends if they were directed to more human-relevant research, including work with human cell lines, stem cells and tissues, computational models, and even humans themselves.

Help NAVS support the advancement of smarter, human-relevant science that does not harm animals by making a donation today. 

Source: Hartung, T. “Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing,” ALTEX , 2017

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — Reasons to Stop Animal Testing

Reasons to Stop Animal Testing

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 716 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 716 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Why We Must Stop Animal Testing

Works cited.

• Animal Justice. (n.d.). Animal Testing.
• Cruelty Free International. (n.d.). Animal testing. https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing
• European Commission. (n.d.). Alternatives to animal testing.
• Ferdowsian, H. R., & Beck, N. (2011). Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. PLoS ONE, 6(9).
• PETA. (n.d.). The Issues: Animals Used for Experimentation. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. (n.d.). Animal Testing and Medicine. https://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltestingandmedicine
• Ranganathan, J., & Ranganathan, D. (2014). Animal testing and its alternatives - the most promising and reliable methods. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 24(1), 1–6.
• Saunders, N., & Roughley, M. (2017). The ethics of animal research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 189(5), E187–E188.
• Singer, P. (2015). Ethics and animal experimentation: What is debated? Journal of Medical Ethics , 41(1), 1–3.
• The Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). Animal Testing 101.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 642 words

2 pages / 878 words

2 pages / 1002 words

3 pages / 1351 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Testing

Animal experimentation has been a subject of debate and controversy for centuries. This essay delves into the history and context of animal experimentation, its evolution over time, the arguments for and against it, and [...]

Goldberg, A., & Prescott, J. (2002). Animal experimentation: A moral issue? John Wiley & Sons.Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., & Sandercock, P. (2007). Comparison of treatment effects [...]

Animal rights have become a pressing topic in modern-day society due to the increased awareness of animal welfare and ethical responsibilities. The concept of animal rights involves the recognition of animals as sentient beings [...]

Imagine a world where innocent creatures are subjected to painful experiments in the name of scientific progress. This cruel reality is not a dystopian fiction, but rather a harsh truth that exists in our society. Animal testing [...]

Balls, M., & Fabre, I. (2019). Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review. European Pharmaceutical Review, 24(6), 29-33.Ekwall, B. (2000). The Multicentre Evaluation of In Vitro Cytotoxicity (MEIC) Programme: A Model for [...]

Since long time ago animals starting from mice to cows have been used for research. There are lots of examples of testing these or that phenomena on animals. But is it correct? Is it what a human should do? And what well-known [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Med Ethics Hist Med

Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK

Using animals for cosmetics and medical tests has contributed towards a debate based on conflicting interests. Despite the efforts in justifying the value of animals in conducting analyses, this study seeks to elaborate whether or not it is rational to use animals as test subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The value of animal life is at the core of the emotional conflicts that arise when animals become experimental subjects in medical and cosmetics fields. The aim of this study is to determine if there are ethical differences in the use of animal testing in medicine versus cosmetics. The research, through review and content analysis of the existing literature, compares and provides the outcomes of using animals in medical and cosmetics tests by examining studies conducted in the UK. The findings of this research indicated that animal testing is considered acceptable in the medical field only if there are no other alternatives, but is completely unacceptable in the cosmetics field. The study also provides recommendations in the form of alternatives that protect animals from cruelty and may benefit the different stakeholders and the society at large.

Introduction

Throughout history, animals have been the subject of experimentation to improve our understanding of anatomy and pathology ( 1 ). However, animal testing only became significant in the twentieth century ( 2 ).

Animal experiments are used extensively when developing new medicines and for testing the safety of certain products. Recently, the use of animals for biomedical research has been severely criticized by animal rights and protection groups. Similarly, many nations have established laws to make the practice of animal testing more humane. There are two positions in animal testing. One is that animal testing is acceptable if suffering is minimized and there are human benefits that could not have been achieved using any other means ( 3 ). The second position considers animal testing unacceptable because it causes suffering, and the benefits to human beings are either not proven or could be obtained using other methods.

As such, animal testing is a highly controversial subject that often elicits conflicting emotions from supporters and critics alike. It is also a divisive subject as some people support animal testing only in certain cases and oppose its use in other areas. For example, scientists note that significant medical breakthroughs have only been made possible through drug testing on animals. To them and other like-minded people, such achievements are reason enough to keep using animals in the lab ( 4 ). Animal tests determine if experimental drugs are effective or ineffective on human beings. Eventually, the medicine is tried out on a small group of humans through clinical trials before declaring the medicine safe to use.

Badyal and DesaI ( 5 ) note that these treatments are as beneficial to humans as they are to animals, since some human diseases are found in animals too. Therefore, some who support animal testing only advocate its use for medical (but not cosmetics) purposes, arguing that the advancement in human medicine may lead to advancement in animal medicine.

While a significant population completely disapproves of animal testing, a faction of people only disagrees with the use of animals for cosmetics testing, arguing that it is despicable and cruel to use animal life merely so that humans can advance their beauty technology. The concern extends to animals used for science, and people want animal suffering to be minimized ( 6 ). The discovery of new drugs has for a long time been based on a number of interactions among aspects such as data collected from patients, tissues, organs or cell culture and varied animal species ( 7 ). Those who oppose the use of animal testing for cosmetics believe it is outrageous and cruel to use animal life for the simple reason of making humans look better, and that the benefits to human beings do not validate the harms done to animals ( 7 ).

For such reasons, the use of animals for testing cosmetics products has been banned in the UK and all other member states of the European Union since 2013 ( 8 ). However, other countries like China and the United States of America still continue with the practice ( 9 ). Linzey adds that about 50 - 100 million animals are used for experiments every year, and that over 1.37 million animals were used for drug experimentation in America in the year 2010 ( 9 ). In the meantime, the number of experiments conducted on animals has declined in Britain but is increasing in other countries. While experiments involving vertebrates are regulated in most countries, experiments on invertebrates are not ( 5 ).

The aim of this study is to examine whether or not animal testing is still useful and necessary in the present time, and whether there are ethical differences between animal testing in medical and cosmetics fields. We use the UK as our case study and provide alternatives that can be recommended in place of animal testing.

This review was based on a cross-sectional survey by Clemence and Leaman ( 11 ) that analysed the importance of animal testing from two different aspects: medicine and cosmetics. The population consisted of individuals residing in the UK, and the sample size was 987 (= 0.03). The research included 496 men and 491 women. The report compared public views with the responses from a similar study in 2014 that had 969 participants (477 men and 492 women). The inclusion criteria were based on numerous strata such as gender, social grade definitions (i.e., professionals such as doctors and architects, people with responsible jobs such as professors, middle rank public servants such as nurses and clerics, skilled manual workers, etc.), respondents’ working status (fulltime, part-time, not working), ethnicity (white, non-white), and educational background. This report measured public perception on whether it is ethical to use animal testing for medical or cosmetics purposes. Participants were required to state whether they found it acceptable, mostly unacceptable, unacceptable, or were undecided. Consequently, the same participants were also tasked to indicate whether they saw conducting animal testing for scientific experimentation as completely necessary, somewhat necessary, not very necessary, completely unnecessary, or they did not know.

The study also utilized data from the UK Home Office ( 12 ) to determine which animals were most frequently used for medical and cosmetics research around the world. This report also provided crucial information as to the purposes of animal testing, for instance for medical research, biological testing, regulatory testing, etc.

According to the UK Home Office ( 12 ), in the year 2016, 48.6% of the animal tests in medical research were conducted for genetically oriented studies. Moreover, 28.5% of the medical research involving animal testing was for basic biological research, 13.5% was for regulatory

testing, 8.6% was for translating research from animals to humans, and 0.8% for other trainings. This is summarized in Figure 1 below.

Purposes of Animal Testing in Medicine

Data from the UK Home Office ( 10 ) indicates that the most commonly used animals for medical and cosmetics research are mice and rabbits (72.8%), fish (13.6%), rats (6.3%), birds (3.9%) and other animal species representing 3.4% of the total test animal population, as indicated in Figure 2 below.

Types of Animals Used in Testing

A published report ( 12 ) indicated that 17% of the sampled group viewed animal testing for medical research as ‘mostly unacceptable’ if there were no alternative, 17% as ‘not acceptable’, and 65% as ‘acceptable’. This was in stark contrast with testing for cosmetics purposes, to which an overwhelming 80% of the participants responded as ‘unacceptable’. The summary of the results is provided in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below.

Animal Testing for Medical Research

Animal Testing for Cosmetics Research

 In the same study ( 12 ), the participants were asked about the necessity of conducting scientific experiments on animals, which 38% of the respondents viewed as ‘completely necessary’, 23% as ‘somewhat necessary’, 20% as ‘not very necessary’, and 16% as ‘completely unnecessary’. The results are summarized in Figure 5 below.

Necessity of Conducting Scientific Experiments on Animals

The application of these methods to evaluate the safety of cosmetics was the most detested as stated by about 80% of the people who were interviewed during the investigation. The sensitivity to human life, on the other hand, reduces the strictness towards utilization of animals to find anti-viruses and antibiotics for various diseases.

The outcome portrays the essentiality of using animals to determine materials that would help the population to live healthily ( 13 ). However, in the past few decades, the number of animals used for testing drugs has been steadily decreasing ( 14 ).

The data indicates that most of the medical research processes involving animal testing emanate from genetically oriented studies, which constitute 48.6% of the medical research animal testing. Experimentation on human genetics presents various legal and ethical challenges to medical and biological researchers, alongside problems in creating experimental procedures using human test subjects. These problems occur partially due to the fact that the experimentation processes involved in these types of studies often lead to extensive gene and physiological damages to the test subjects. Such experiments typically involve deliberate presentation of diseases and other gene modifications to the test subjects, usually requiring the euthanizing of the involved subjects ( 15 ). The animal testing experimentations involving genetic processes include studies in gene modification and examine diseases believed to hold genetic components, such as cancer and diabetes ( 16 ). These experimentation processes typically involve some sort of gene modification that can simulate the presentation of genetically based disorders manifested in human beings to allow researchers to better understand those disorders.

The data also indicate that another major application of animal testing in the medical field is in basic research in biological systems and processes, which accounts for 28.5% of the testing categories. This application of animal testing in medical research involves studies in how biological systems function, and the nature and manner of disease transmission in living organisms. The findings accrued through these kinds of studies translate to advancements in the scientific knowledge of human pathology and present opportunities for the derivation and testing of cures, as noted by Festing and Wilkinson ( 17 ).

The findings further present that regulatory testing (13.5%) and animal to human translation research (8.6%) account for significant portions of the application of animal testing in the medical field. The use of animal testing for regulatory testing purposes involves applying new medical findings, procedures and products to animals to see if they meet the thresholds mandated by the medical regulatory bodies. Translation of research findings from animals to humans involves conducting research into the possibility of animal pathogens becoming infectious to humans, and identifying potential ways of applying non-human physiology to the improvement of human health. Other forms of medical and biological trainings and studies that also engage the use of animals in experimentation in the medical field include elements such as basic physiology and pathogen studies, typically conducted in educational institutions.

Animal testing in the field of cosmetics generally involves the use of animal subjects in testing new cosmetics products and ingredients. The practice essentially involves the application or forced ingestion or injection of these substances to various parts of test animals to examine their toxicity, irritation of the eyes and/or skin, ultraviolet light-triggered toxicity, and their potential for causing unwanted gene mutations ( 18 ).

The use of animal testing in the field of cosmetics research and production presents an unethical viewpoint since the findings do not advance human health, and the practice leads to the torture and killing of animals. The Humane Society ( 18 ) also notes that at the conclusion of the experimentation, the animals are usually killed through methods such as decapitation, neck twisting and asphyxiation, often without pain relief.

With regard to the ethical principles of animal testing in both fields, a convincing argument should first be presented to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This is to justify the need for a researcher to conduct animal studies, and to ensure that the research is conducted using the smallest possible number of animals and with minimal suffering. Additionally, Naderi et al. ( 19 ) noted an increased level of legislation on the matter of animal testing, with researchers being required to submit comprehensive proposals to the IACUC to demonstrate procedural compliance with the guiding principles of the organization before conducting animal tests. Furthermore, Holden ( 20 ) highlighted the fact that researchers need to justify to review and ethics committees the use of mice rather than other alternatives in experiments. These issues indicate that researchers should look for alternatives to animal testing before proceeding with animal trials.

The issue then remains on the nature and availability of alternatives to animal testing in the medical research field. Researchers have undertaken measures to introduce some levels of such alternatives in medical studies. The accrued data indicate that a significant number of people agree with animal testing for medical research, especially when compared to those who agree with animal testing for cosmetics purposes. The data obtained from the studies indicate a slow but perceptible shift in the public opinions regarding animal testing for medical research purposes. People are increasingly finding it unacceptable to use animal test subjects even in medical research. However, the majority of the sampled people believed that medical testing procedures should use animal test subjects, but only when there is no other alternative. This indicates that people view animal testing for medical research as ethical, but under certain conditions.

The use of animals in research is still relevant because the process is useful in veterinary medicine as it helps the students understand the physiology and anatomy and improves surgical skills ( 21 ). The study by Badyal and Desai ( 5 ) supports this perception by highlighting the fact that animal use in laboratory investigation will make new discoveries possible. However, researchers should apply ethical concepts to reduce the amount of pain and unnecessary procedures for the animals. Moreover, animal testing to develop new drugs will continue to protect the future existence of humanity. Cheluvappa, et al. ( 22 ) reiterate that animal experimentation will remain essential to testing future medicine because it helps scientists understand the changes of behaviour, embryology and genetics through dissections that are conducted on the genetically produced animals.

Animals play an important role in testing human drugs as they have a large number of medical reactions similar to those of human beings. Specifically, animals such as dogs, mice and rabbits have an identical DNA that cannot be replicated through artificial models. Public concern for the increasing use of animals in terms of ethics and safety provokes anxiety among the population. Conversely, these uncertainties and unavailability of trustable alternatives show the importance of using animals in medical research as the scientists aim to protect the human race ( 23 ).

However, the use of animals to test cosmetics is highly limited due to the availability of alternative sources. For instance, The Laboratory Animals Veterinary Association (LAVA) claims that the UK government prohibits any individual from using animals to determine the suitability of cosmetics to the human body ( 13 , 24 ). In its circular, The European Union states that they have succeeded in developing alternative measures that cosmetics firms can apply to test their products without using laboratory animals ( 25 ).

Recommendations: Alternatives to Animal Testing

To improve business ethics in cosmetics companies, it is necessary for alternatives to be integrated instead of animals. Companies can employ assessment of scientific barriers to find replacements for animal test subjects and to procure the knowledge of correctly using animals for medical and cosmetics tests. Sophisticated tests on human cells or tissues, computer-modelling techniques, and experiments on people who volunteer are some measures that can limit acts of animal cruelty by cosmetics companies. Companies need to integrate tests that minimize involvement of animals in order to limit the possibility of animal cruelty, and consequently improve their business ethics. Some of the recommended alternatives are listed here.

Computer Simulation

The concept was developed by Denis Noble, and the system is currently enrolled in clinical settings. These simulations are used to test heart replacements, and are also applied to explore human behavior. Various scholars provide that this model is more accurate than animal experiments because it uses human data to analyse diseases and make predictions ( 26 ).

Stem cells are proper alternatives to the in vitro systems of disease testing and toxin evaluations ( 27 ). The experiments involve evaluation of embryonic stem cells that can be grown in Petri dishes. The Petri dishes can be placed in the cells, and after that the resulting components are placed under evaluation to help in the discovery of new medications. Stem cells are essential because they can differentiate into human tissues and make it possible to screen the suspected diseases ( 26 ).

These materials are majorly utilized in the cosmetics industry to minimize the number of animals used to test the level of toxicity in a product. Significantly, investigations showed that human tissues developed in laboratories can be used to assess the allergic responses to the available chemicals ( 28 ). These results can then be analysed by comparing reactions, and a bio signature of genes is used to make appropriate interventions.

Notably, scientists can take high-resolution pictures of human tissues, which are then analyzed with the help of various computer systems. The advantage of this model is characterized by its ability to customize the parts of the organism under consideration. Moreover, 3D images also develop prototype designs and materials that can be used to investigate the existing and future ailments ( 29 ).

This study indicates that it is justifiable to use animals in experimentations only when there are no alternatives, and the tests have significant benefits to humans. Many researchers are working towards finding options that will help eliminate the use of animals for medical and cosmetics tests. The different natures of tests conducted on animals in the fields of medicine and cosmetics tend to have clear negative implications. For such reasons, it is imperative for organizations to develop practices that endorse business ethics. Although animal tests are ideal in establishing whether drugs can be effective in treating humans for various ailments, entities that conduct these tests need to be educated about the gravity of the situation. Animals have been extremely useful in conducting genetic studies and for biological systems investigations. However, a comparison between animal tests in medicine and cosmetics reveals that their benefits in the field of medicine outweigh those in cosmetics. Therefore, animals are essential contributors to scientific experiments that are affiliated with the medical industry. The effects that medical products may have on humans make it ethical to carry out the tests on animals first.

After analysing the arguments of both the supporters and opponents involved in the controversial subject of animal testing, it is difficult to determine which direction is right or wrong. However, the agreement is that animal suffering be minimized at all costs. This research concludes that cosmetics companies should adhere to the established laws and principles against the use and abuse of animals in tests and should seek alternative methods to test their products.

Acknowledgements

Citation to this article:

Kabene S, Baadel S. Bioethics: a look at animal testing in medicine and cosmetics in the UK. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2019; 12: 15.

Conflict of Interests

Authors declare having no conflict of interest.

• Invertebrates
• Best Dog Collar
• Best Smart Dog Collar
• Halo Dog Collar
• Spoton vs Halo Collar
• Wagz Freedom Dog Collar
• SpotOn Dog Collar
• Best Dog Fence
• Best Invisible Dog Fence
• Dog Accessories
• Dog Training
• Dog Harness
• Dog Leashes
• Dog Grooming
• CBD for Dogs
• Dog Age Calculator
• Dog BMI Calculator
• Dog Chocolate Toxicity Calculator
• Dog Food Calculator
• Dog Harness Size Calculator
• Dog Life Expectancy Calculator
• Puppy Weight Calculator
• Dog Water Intake Calculator
• Dog Crate Size Calculator
• Dog Onion Toxicity Calculator
• Dog Raisin Toxicity Calculator
• Pet Sitter Rates Calculator
• Dog Groomer Tip Calculator
• Dog Quality of Life Calculator
• Cost of Owning a Dog Calculator
• Raw Dog Food Calculator
• Dog Dad Shirts
• Dog Mom Shirts
• Automatic Litter Box
• Cat Accessories
• Cat Collars
• Cat Grooming
• Cat Mom Shirts
• Animal Abuse
• Animal Laws
• Animal Rights
• Animal Testing
• How to Help
• Facts & Stats
• Our Campaigns

Animal Testing Should Be Banned Completely – A Heart-Wrecking Situation

Monika Martyn

January 19, 2023.

WorldAnimalFoundation.org is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More

It’s hard to imagine, as an intelligent species, we’re still discussing animal experimentation. There’s no doubt that animal testing is to the apparent benefit of people. However, that doesn’t make it right that over 100 million innocent animals suffer for our well-being.

Animal experimentation needs to end. It’s not a question of right or wrong. Animals have feelings and the right to live without cruelty inflicted on them for the sake of testing chemicals. Period.

So why do we continue to abuse, cage, cripple, infect, and kill dogs, cats, monkeys, mice, and rats in animal experiments? This is not about thanking the cosmetic industry (Europe, India, Israel) for condemning and banning animal tests. It’s about saving the 100 million abused animals in American laboratories.

Here’s what you need to know to stop the abuse and end animal experiments.

Why Is Animal Testing Bad?

It just is. Animal testing andanimal experiments inflict inhumane suffering on animals. These creatures never consented to have experiments conducted on their bodies, skin, or DNA.

The debate over whether it’s right divides the room. Many people believe animal testing is barbaric and outdated. Others argue that scientific progress has helped save millions of human lives.

It’s Unethical

There are billions of great people in this world. Together, we need to end torturing 100 million animals. Animals experience pain, loneliness, fear, and emotions, just like us. When they have to endure scientific and medical experiments, it’s incomprehensible.

Animal Testing Is Unreliable

Animals and humans share some similarities. It’s one of the main reasons the debate gets so heated: animals have feelings too.

Our differences contribute to the failure of human clinical trials. Many of the pharmaceuticals end up being too dangerous and ineffective for human consumption. That means we subject innocent animals to horrendous suffering for a small return of success.

Up to 95% of experimental drugs that pass animal tests fail in human and clinical trials. 

Additionally, some medicines that may work for us are dangerous for animals. For example, aspirin is toxic to animals but is safe for human use. We wouldn’t be able to get it from pharmacies if it had been tested using current animal testing standards.

It’s Bad Science

People believe in science as proof. Therefore, according to the National Institute of Health, 95 out of 100 drugs developed with lab animals fail. In no other facet of life would we accept these results as a ‘good idea.’ It’s proof that animal experiments don’t work.

Animal Testing Is Dangerous for Humans

Sometimes math and science don’t work. A few years ago, big pharma pushed a new wonder drug, Vioxx, to treat arthritis patients. It was a welcomed relief. Lab monkeys and five other animal species showed improvements on paper.

Yet, in the aftermath, patients who took the prescribed pills faced a graver issue. Studies showing 320,000 heart attack and stroke victims proved that lab results didn’t help humans. Sadly, 140,000 people died because of Vioxx.

Another clinical trial ended badly for patients who either suffered severe liver damage or death from Hepatitis B due to a drug experiment conducted on animals.

In 2016, another miracle drug that was reportedly going to treat all kinds of conditions killed a volunteer and left four patients with devastating brain damage. This experimental drug passed muster on mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys. Sadly, nobody reported how those animal subjects felt after having the medication forced on them.

In a new monoclonal antibody treatment tested on monkeys at 500 times the recommended human dose, human volunteers suffered near-fatal allergic reactions.

Human beings often volunteer for human trials to help find cures for human diseases. Animal research facilities should promote the health of animals, not human health.

It’s Wasteful

No doubt, we want our loved ones to receive the best care. Unfortunately, animal experiments only make the grade about half the time. The rest end up in the trash as failed and worthless. The sad part is that research using lab animals takes enormous resources and squanders money, time, human intelligence, and creativity. 

All that waste causes human suffering on top of animal suffering. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, “We’ve cured mice of cancer for decades. It simply didn’t work on humans.”

Cancer is nasty. But if animals ultimately fail in medical research or other laboratory experiments, why don’t researchers use advanced technology to test harmful substances?

It’s Archaic

Scientists have compassion too. Many have created modern, effective non-animal testing methods that are cost-effective, fast, and deliver more accurate results without animal testing. These non-animal methods include micro-dosing, in vitro testing, organs-on-chips , simulators, and advanced computer modeling technology.

Humans share genetic information and DNA with plants and animals. For example, cows and humans share about 80%, and common fruit flies about 61%. A banana has 60% human DNA.

It’s possible to look at this debate from two sides. One is to explore the common DNA and use it to our benefit. The other is if they share that much genetic material with us, does it make sense to harm them?

Animals Feel Pain

Evolutionary biologist Marc Bekoff and his many colleagues have done all the necessary research to prove animals feel pain. Mammals share strong similarities in the nervous system, chemical transmitters, emotional states, and perceptual tools to prove animals experience pain. That they experience pain differently is irrelevant. 

The Animal Welfare Act should protect animals. Yet lab animals like mice, rats, reptiles, amphibians, and birds used in labs don’t fall under their protection. Instead, lab animals endure inhumane procedures and treatments like scorched skin, immobilization, inhaling toxic fumes, and holes drilled in their skull and spinal cords crushed.

Often, lab animals receive no administered pain relief and are left to suffer intense pain. These institutions,  by law or regulations, don’t have to provide any. 

Yet, in experiments, when many animals like rats, mice, and chickens trapped in barren cages have access to self-administered pain relief, they use it to reduce the pain. Wild animals also nurse their wounds, show distress, and seek shelter.

They learn to avoid situations that relate to bad experiences with pain. This action indicates that animals are aware of the pain and can associate it with experiences from their past.

It’s Unnecessary

It’s challenging to review pictures of animals used without consent and not form an opinion.

The main reason for banning animal testing, aside from sparing animals the pain, is that we don’t need it. Animal testing should not be part of a university lab experiment paid for by the tax-payer who is against animal torture in the first place.

Animal Testing Is Dangerous for Non-Human Animals

That is the point. It’s not only dangerous, cruel, painful, and inhumane; some of the methods harken back to medieval torture chambers.

Imagine mice, rabbits , rats, and guinea pigs with their eyes burned from drip chemicals or toxic potions smeared into their exposed skin tissue without pain medication.

It’s hard to think about a human consenting to the Draize or LD50 Test. This test measuring toxicity often leads to blindness, scarring, death, and insurmountable pain. 

Years from now, the LD50 will be on display in museums as one of the wickedest torture animal tests. This substance test is inflicted on animals to be fatal in 50% of the test subjects. Researchers strap animals to tubes and inject the test substance directly into the sequestered animals’ stomachs. Until they die, which can take days or weeks, animals suffer.

The animals die agonizingly, suffering internal bleeding, diarrhea, vomiting, paralysis, convulsions, and horrendous pain. Death becomes their relief.

Facts About Animal Testing

The first fact is that animals suffer. The second is that we must stop animal testing.

The law requires 12,000 animals subjected to over 50 experiments to endure for a company to register a single pesticide. No one argues that pesticides must meet safety standards.

According to the statistics reviewed by the National Institute of Health, only 5% of drugs tested on animals show positive results, while 95% are worthless. That is a bad score. Sixty percent of no-consent animals are exposed to biomedical research and product safety testing.

According to the Humane Society, animals and humans are very different. Animal subjects don’t suffer from the same illnesses as humans. So why are we testing on animals when they don’t contract many human illnesses? HIV, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and certain types of cancer are human diseases.

Substances that cause cancer in people affect animals differently, and only one-third cause cancer in animals. Animal research conducted on over 100 mouse cell types discovered that regulating genes in mice match human DNA. How can you create an exact science and get valid human responses on that foundation?

How to Stop Animal Testing?

Every day, we use products that cost an animal its life or severe pain. Awareness campaigns are only a starting point. Choosing animal cruelty-free products is another. The science supporting animal testing stands on faulty ground. Instead, all industries should concentrate on using new methods and technologies to conduct research that works.

Some industries, like cosmetic companies, are making strides and not  testing on animals.  However, there’s much room for improvement in the household cleaner, deodorant, fem hygiene, and thousands of pharmaceutical products.

Animal rights activists paved the way to end suffering for endangered species , lab animals, and domesticated animals.

Alternative Ways of Experimenting

People are smart. Technology has exploded in the last few decades. We can use human cells and tissue, 3D printing, robots, and computer modeling to get more accurate results faster. They’re also cost-effective and don’t subject animals to cruel and unnecessary animal tests.

If this was painful to read, the article has done its job.

In conclusion, animal testing and research must be banned worldwide, as it is against animals’ rights and causes unwanted suffering to lab animals. Also, now there are other available methods to test product toxicity. Cruelty against animals should not be taken lightly just because they are not “humans.”

We’re on the precipice of human evolution and developing a united mindset to stop animal testing once and for all.

Every individual has the power to influence change. Choose cruelty-free products, become involved, champion the cause, and help millions of animals. The USA Government has finally passed a law banning animal testing on cosmetics.

Join the conversation and become an animal advocate. You are the difference!

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Latest Posts

9 Best Guard Dog Breeds that Love Children and Protect Them

7 Best Guard Dog Breeds for Kids in the United States

7 American Dog Breeds That Don’t Shed Much

7 Smartest Small Guard Dog Breeds That Offer Mighty Protection

7 Most Smartest Large Guard Dog Breeds for Your Home

9 Most Popular Dog Breeds in Wisconsin in 2024

7 Most Popular Dog Breeds in Massachusetts in 2024

7 Most Popular Dog Breeds in Minnesota in 2024

10 Most Popular Dog Breeds in New Jersey in 2024

7 Most Popular Dog Breeds in Indiana in 2024

Get updates on the latest posts and more from World Animal Foundation straight to your inbox.

Yes, Animal Testing Should Be Illegal — Here’s Why

Feb. 1 2023, Published 10:49 a.m. ET

It’s probably not surprising to find out that a lot of environmentalists think that animal testing should be illegal . And while one of the main reasons is obvious — the practice is cruel — there are some other factors involved too.

When it comes to such a big topic, learning more information is crucial. As a consumer, this allows you to make more informed choices and use your buying power for good .

Animal testing has proven to be ineffective.

Despite what some companies might lead you to believe, animal testing actually isn’t all that effective.

Around 96 percent of drugs that successfully pass preclinical trials — which includes animal testing — then fail to enter the market. “The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests,” according to a study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Some might argue that animal testing can still produce useful information, but the study states that the risk isn’t worth it. The results of animal experiments can be misleading, which can cause more harm than good. So while you might get information, it won’t necessarily be useful, and it could even take away resources from experiments with more potential and reliability.

As a result of various factors — bias, poor methodology, etc. — animal testing is considered “highly unlikely to yield useful information about human diseases,” according to the study.

This all might come as a shock, considering the fact that businesses have been engaging in animal testing for years . It’s possible that you were even under the impression that these tests were necessary and the only way to get information.

According to CNN , 10 states have banned the sale of cosmetic products that are tested on animals. New York is the most recent state to take action , citing cruelty, ineffectiveness, and the availability of alternative methods. Hopefully more states will follow suit.

Many companies have banned the practice.

L'Oréal claims that it does not conduct animal testing, but the major beauty brand is not actually cruelty-free, as it does allow its products to be tested on animals.

To further prove that animal testing isn’t necessary, thousands of companies have put a stop to it. Well-known brands such as Dove, Herbal Essences, Dr. Bronner’s, Seventh Generation, and Aveda are all cruelty-free , according to PETA.

In an article from 1989, The New York Times reported on the quiet disentanglement from animal testing . And while we’ve made some progress now — more than 30 years later — not enough has changed.

The issues that were addressed back then are the same as what people bring up in conversations today. Companies were unsure of other methods, still under the strong impression that animal testing was necessary for safety reasons.

The only difference is that today, we know this reason is irrelevant — yet it’s still used as an excuse.

The transition away from animal testing has been a slow one, to say the least. Despite modern alternatives and never-ending protests, only some states have banned the practice and many companies still partake.

Thankfully, even though the progress we’ve made is somewhat minimal, it’s still progress. It seems that if current changes are indicative of the future, then we can look forward to more positive news regarding animal testing .

All of this just goes to show that when consumers demand changes and take action, they can get results, even if those results take a while.

Virginia Passes Act Banning Animal Testing for Cosmetics

The FDA Is No Longer Requiring Animal Testing for New Drugs

These Brutal Cosmetic Testing Methods Are Why We Need Cruelty-Free Makeup

Latest Veganism News and Updates

• ABOUT Green Matters
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• CONNECT with Green Matters
• Link to Facebook
• Link to Instagram
• Contact us by Email

Opt-out of personalized ads

© Copyright 2024 Green Matters. Green Matters is a registered trademark. All Rights Reserved. People may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.

Animal Testing should be Banned

This essay will argue against the use of animal testing, discussing ethical, scientific, and practical reasons for its prohibition. It will examine the moral implications of using animals for research, the pain and suffering inflicted, and the issue of animal rights. The piece will also discuss alternatives to animal testing, such as in vitro methods and computer modeling, and how these can be more effective, humane, and economical. The essay aims to advocate for a shift in scientific research towards more ethical and sustainable practices. Also at PapersOwl you can find more free essay examples related to Animal Testing.

How it works

Many organizations are debating whether animal testing ought to be banned in the U. S. Some believe that animal testing ought to be done. At the same time, others believe that animal testing is completely wrong. Some experts believe that other options can be available instead of doing the test on animals. Using animals to test the safety of certain products and for medical research purposes is wrong, and it should be made a point that the pain and suffering forced on the animals are just not worth it.

Animal testing is a growing debate in today’s society (1).

Animal testing entails scientists’ usage of a variety of goods, immunizations, or other items that are developed for people but are also used on animals. The most common animals used in scientific research include rats, birds, and amphibians; however, scientists do make use of other species. The operations frequently result in a significant amount of pain and distress for each individual animal. At the conclusion of an experiment, the vast majority of animals are killed, but some of them may be put to use in further research. Animal testing grew simultaneously with industrialization. It’s important to remember that the knowledge gained. The welfare of millions of people has been improved thanks to experiments and research using animals. Testing on animals has always been contentious, and this continues to be the case today because researchers need to do experiments on animals in order to discover potentially life-saving therapies and medicines for people. As a result, an unimaginably high number of defenseless creatures are being brutally put to death.

The utilization of animals in research makes it simpler for scientists to identify which medicines and therapies are safe and effective for human consumption. The primary reason that pharmaceuticals and therapies are initially tested on animals is that some treatments and medications are damaging to the lives of people and can lead to people’s death if they are not tested on animals first. Drugs that have been subjected to animal testing are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people annually. The truth is that most animal studies don’t contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal testing serves in most technological advances in medicine is questionable. (2). Further investigation has shown that many medications that appear effective and safe in animals, inflicting no effect on the animals, actually fail or cause substantial injury, or perhaps even death, in people. This is because animal organs cannot be confused with human ones, and they have their own unique identification. They argue that animals cannot be relied upon as subjects since their bodies are too different from those of people. Because animals’ organs, neurological systems, and cellular constitution are so distinct from one another, any knowledge gained from doing experiments on them would be misleading. The information gained from these tests would be of little benefit to humans, in addition to being extremely harmful to the animals involved (3).

Drug testing on animals serves no practical use for science. It breaks my heart to see animals being forced to perform behaviors they don’t comprehend. Using animals in experiments is a cruel and unfair activity that has bad outcomes for everyone concerned. Diseases that affect humans, such as heart disease, numerous types of cancer, HIV, and others, cannot be passed on to animals. Experimental results in animals cannot be extrapolated to human behavior because of essential differences in morphology, physiology, and metabolism. They disagree with the concept of animal rights and believe that humans have no moral grounding in exploiting animals for material gain (4). Some of these defenseless animals are killed by being smothered by poisonous gases, being paralyzed in restraints for long periods of time, having holes punched in their skulls, having their skin scorched off, or having their spinal cords crushed. It’s cruel and pointless to test on animals. Unspeakable things can happen during the testing. One method is to slowly drip the substance under test into the eye of a rabbit until the animal’s cornea corrodes. One such method requires killing off at least half of the animals fed the component of interest (5). There is a heated discussion happening right now in the U. S. over doing tests on these poor, defenseless animals.

Costing more money and wasting resources, animal testing is unnecessary. There’s also the fact that it’s pointless to do so. Due to their inaccuracy and inability to predict the complete range of negative effects, animals are horrible test subjects for a chemical’s safety. Animals should have legal protection from this kind of abuse. In many instances, medical discoveries are delayed as researchers vainly waste time, money, effort, and animal lives trying to create an animal model of human disease (6). Animal testing generally costs enormous amounts of money, as the animals must be fed, cared for, housed, and treated with drugs or a similar experimental substance. Additionally, the price of the animals themselves must also be paid for. There are companies in the United States who actually breed animals specifically for the cause of testing, and animals can be purchased from them as well. Not only is this research cruel, but the billions of dollars wasted on animal studies funnels money away from human-based research that entails computer modeling and tissue cultures that could be helping people (5).

The use of animals in experimenting with human-based products has been debatable for a while now. It should be noted that sometimes the benefit of successful animal research is. However, it is important to acknowledge that each animal undergoing the process endures agony and death, no matter the final result. Both animals and humans have the capacity for emotion, cognition, behavior, and the feeling of physical pain. However, animals are afforded a certain respect as humans. Animals’ rights are violated when used in research because they are not given a choice. They just put straight under the penalty of an experiment for the health of humans. Humans cannot make life better for themselves by torturing and executing so many animals each year to perform laboratory experiments or to test products on them.

• Nurunnabi ASM, Afroz RD, Alam SN. Ethical Debate on Animal Research. Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics. 2013 Dec 20;4(3):11–8.
• Doke SK, Dhawale SC. Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. 2015 Jul;23(3):223–9.
• Balls M, Bailey J, Combes RD. How viable are alternatives to animal testing in determining the toxicities of therapeutic drugs? Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology. 2019 Nov 21;15(12):985–7.
• Karaim R. Protecting Animals [Internet]. CQ Researcher by CQ Press. 2018. Available from: https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2018071300
• Toronto. Time to end animal testing of cosmetics | The Star [Internet]. thestar.com. thestar.com; 2018. Available from: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2018/06/30/time-to-end-animal-testing-of-cosmetics.html
• Humane Society International. Limitations of Animal Tests – Humane Society International [Internet]. Humane Society International. 2019. Available from: https://www.hsi.org/news-media/limitations-of-animal-tests/

Cite this page

Animal Testing Should Be Banned. (2020, May 13). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/

"Animal Testing Should Be Banned." PapersOwl.com , 13 May 2020, https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Animal Testing Should Be Banned . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/ [Accessed: 16 May. 2024]

"Animal Testing Should Be Banned." PapersOwl.com, May 13, 2020. Accessed May 16, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/

"Animal Testing Should Be Banned," PapersOwl.com , 13-May-2020. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/. [Accessed: 16-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2020). Animal Testing Should Be Banned . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/animal-testing-should-be-banned/ [Accessed: 16-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Modal title

We’re calling on the FDA to save animals by modernizing drug testing

Wednesday, May 15, 2024

By Sara Amundson and Kitty Block

In an era defined by scientific and technological innovation, testing drugs on dogs, rats, monkeys and other animals is not only becoming increasingly outdated but causes immense animal suffering. Despite publicly indicating a commitment to non-animal test methods, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulations and guidance documents for pharmaceutical companies are unclear and continue to emphasize the use of animals for drug testing. There is evidence that some companies believe testing on animals is legally required as part of the drug approval process.

That’s why we’ve filed a petition with the FDA today , requesting that the agency take a series of steps to make it plain and clear that animal testing isn’t legally required for drug approval and that the agency encourage companies to use non-animal methods when available. The FDA is legally required to consider and respond to our petition.

Tell the FDA to phase out animal testing >>

The petition asks the FDA to make the following changes to its regulations and guidance documents, which are documents that provide additional information on how to comply with its regulations:

• Amend its regulations to make it clear that the FDA does not require animal testing for drugs.
• Publish a new guidance document describing the non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal tests. The document should be updated regularly as new non-animal methods become available.
• Commit to adding text to all existing and future guidance documents regarding the regulation of drugs. The new text should encourage companies to use non-animal methods whenever possible and refer them to the new guidance document on accepted non-animal methods.

Without these changes, the lack of clarity in FDA regulations will continue to perpetuate the status quo. That means tens of thousands of animals per year continue to suffer in archaic tests such as those we documented in an undercover investigation at a laboratory in 2022. The ambiguity surrounding whether animal testing is needed for drugs to gain approval is harmful in several ways. It creates confusion and discourages innovation. It may also negatively impact human health.

We all agree that the FDA has a responsibility to make sure that drugs intended for people are safe and effective. This is all the more reason why the agency should promote the use of data from non-animal test methods based in human biology; animal testing is not a reliable predictor of safety or efficacy in humans. Animal testing has acknowledged scientific limitations, but innovative non-animal technologies will only continue to improve. Emerging technologies such as organ-on-a-chip models offer promising approaches that are based on human biology and yield more reliable results.

We are not alone in our demand for the adoption of more humane testing methods. University centers devoted to non-animal methods are making the same case, and a pioneering 2007 National Research Council report spurred the creation of numerous governmental initiatives focused on the ultimate replacement of animals in toxicity testing. As a result of our longstanding political advocacy, Congress has also publicly supported and secured increased funding for alternatives to animal use. The time for change is now. You can help prevent countless animals from suffering by urging the FDA to update its drug testing regulations and embrace non-animal alternatives .

By supporting our petition to modernize the FDA’s drug testing regulations and guidance documents, you can help us create a future where compassion and scientific advancement go hand in hand.

Kitty Block is CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.

Stay connected with news and action alerts: