Written by Rachel Joy
English philosopher Jeremy Bentham once wrote, “Can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?” Bentham compares animals with humans, stating that animals suffer just as humans do, even if they cannot talk or reason. Animal testing is considered unfavorable by many, because it is unnecessary, unfair, and not reliable.
Animal testing is completely unneeded, because it is simply one method out of many. Alternative options that scientists have access to are available. In vitro testing, or in glass testing, holds many methods that are more dependable and more accurate than animal testing can ever be. This includes studying cell cultures in petri dishes, which generates more relative results compared to animal testing, because human cells are used (Should Animals be Used 4). In vitro testing also includes the use of artificial human skin, which is created from human skin cells grown in test tubes. Scientists could do scientific and commercial testing on artificial human skin without harming any organisms, and yield better results (Should Animals be Used 4). Another method that could serve as a replacement of animal testing would be microfluidic chips, which are currently in development. They are lined with human cells and “...recreate the functions of human organs” (Should Animals be Used 4). In addition, animal testing is unnecessary, because an excessive amount of money is being spent over it. Animal tests waste more government research dollars compared to alternatives (Should Animals be Used 7). When comparing an array of animal tests with the in vitro coequals, the Humane Society International found that “An ‘unscheduled DNA synthesis’ animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A ‘rat phototoxicity test’ costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300” (Should Animals be Used 7). Additionally, animal testing is nonessential, because many experiments that include the use of animals are flawed, ultimately wasting the lives of animal test subjects (Should animals be Used 8). A study found “...serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates” (Should animals be used 8). For instance, 87% of studies that involved animal testing did not randomly choose the type of animals, which is a technique used to minimize selection bias. In addition, 86% of studies did not use a technique called “blinding”, which decreases research bias (Should Animals be Used 8). The use of animal testing is not essential, because not only does it have alternates that are less expensive and would yield better results, but also because the majority of tests that involve animal testing are flawed.
In addition, animal testing is considered to be unfavorable, because it is unfair. The majority of animals who are put up for testing are sentenced to extreme pain or death during studies, usually just to study the healing process of the animal test subject. Animals used in experiments are subjected to death by carbon dioxide asphyxiation (which is the act of impairing normal breathing by a gas), neck-breaking, and decapitation ( Should Animals be Used 2). It is common to put an animal to death, because “the majority of animals under study must be euthanized…” (Animal Research FAQ 1). Also, many animals who are put up for testing are mistreated during studies. Usually, animals utilized in experiments experience “... force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraints...” and “the inflictions of burns and other wounds…” (Should Animals be Used 2). These animals that are being used in these kinds of experiments are mistreated, and often pushed to their breaking point. Furthermore, animals suffer like humans do, so it is inhumane and unfair to harm them. “All suffering is undesirable, whether it be in humans or animals” (Should Animals be Used 8). Suffering and pain should not be inflicted upon animals just because they are different. Judging animals simply because they do not have the moral judgement, cognitive ability, or language as humans do is unfair, and doesn’t mean that animals cannot suffer. Animal testing is indeed unfair, as it leads to the death, the mistreatment, and the suffering of animals.
Finally, animal testing is unreliable. Animal and human body systems are too different for animal testing to yield accurate results that will be beneficial for humans. This is because the metabolic, anatomic, and “... cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings” (Should Animals be Used 1). According to Paul Furlong, it is difficult to make an animal model that even slightly connects to a human (Should Animals be Used 1). Thomas Hartung argues that “‘we are not 70kg rats’” (Should Animals be Used 1). To add on, animal testing is unreliable, because the drugs that pass animal testing are not always safe. For instance, “the 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release” (Should Animals be Used 1). For another example, animals tests on another drug, called Vioxx, showed that the drug protected mice's hearts. However, the drug caused over 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths after being passed on as ‘beneficial’ from animal testing (Should Animals be Used 1). Even though these drugs passed animals tests, they were not safe, and put the lives of innocent humans in danger. Additionally, animal tests can sometimes mislead scientists and researchers from finding cures and treatments. Many chemicals that appear to be harmful to animals may be beneficial to humans. For example, aspirin is dangerous for some animal species to take, and “... Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was ‘almost shelved’ because of animal test results…” (Should Animals be Used 1). These drugs that were valuable to humans were ignored because they had not passed animal tests. Just because these drugs were dangerous to animals, they were essential for humans. Animal testing is not reliable because it may mislead researchers into ignoring cures, animal test subjects differ from humans too much, and because drugs that pass animal tests are not always safe.
To sum it up, animal testing is unfavorable, because it is unnecessary, unfair, and not completely reliable. There are alternatives to animal testing available that are cheaper, and more accurate, which clearly reveals that animal testing is completely unnecessary. Animal testing is not fair, as it leads to to the death, suffering, and mistreatment of animals. Lastly, animals testing is not dependable, because animal body systems and human body systems differ way too much for animal test results to be of any use to us, drugs that pass animal testing are not always safe for human use, and animal tests sometimes mislead researchers. Animal testing is indeed unfavorable, and should be minimized.
Rachel Joy is a 17-year-old freelance writer from Nevada. She loves to write while sipping at a cup of hot coco and her favorite thing to do is iceskating. She participates in NaNoWriMo every November, and reccomends it for any writer.
© 2018 elysianmuse.com