Stop Using Animals for Scientific Research
By the next minute you are reading this, 219 animals are killed in grief and pain in a US lab (Lugo,A. 2016). The Procon organization, the leading source for Pros and Cons of controversial issues, states that only in the US around 26 million animals are used for scientific experiments annually (“Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?,” 2016). Regardless of what is happening to animals, scientists are still using different animals such as rats, mice, rabbits, monkeys, and many others for the advancement of medical research and other experiments for human benefits. For a very long period-of-time, much of the critics over animal testing has concentrated on “toxicity testing- the blinding of bunnies, the poisoning of guinea pigs and other methods of so-called safety testing” (Curren, Rodger, Hill & Erin, 2000). Scientific experiments are often unreliable, inapplicable, abusive, and, most importantly, immoral and inhumane methods of subjecting animals to suffer for the benefit of a human. Therefore, animals should not be used for different scientific researches and experiments.
Scientific experiments are abusing animals in many aspects. Even though animals feel pain in the same way as humans do, they are subjected to painful and frequently deadly experiments. Animals suffer from experimental procedures, imprisonment in laboratories, maternal split up, inability to express social bonds, lack of companionship and stress. The Draize test and the LD50 test are frequently used safety tests. The Draize test, checks the toxicity of a product to eyes on bunnies, which may result to blindness or even death. Usually, the product is tested on bunnies’ eyes to induce damage to their cornea or other parts of their eyes because bunnies’ eyes are very sensitive. The LD50 test is another experiment used to test the toxicity of a product, and it is pumped through tubes into the stomach of the animals. This test causes a frequent and deadly pain on the target animals. Both these tests are criticized for being "shocking, abusive and a needless waste of animal life” (“Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing,” 2016). According to the PETA, the Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories USA (SNBL), a pre-mate dealer and contract-testing laboratory, abuses and abandons monkeys. A 6-week-old monkey died from trauma and hypothermia while monkeys on the other cages were trying unsuccessfully to rescue him from the cage he was trapped. The PETA Senior Vice President of Laboratory Investigations Kathy Guillermo adds that SNBL's lack of proficiency and interest have cruelly killed many monkeys for many years (2016).
Animal testing is not only cruel and abusive but also inapplicable to humans, unreliable and often ineffective. Dr. Richard Klausner, former director of the US National Cancer Institute says, “The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply did not work in human beings.” (as cited in “Arguments against animal testing”, n.d.). Moreover, even though animals are usually different from humans in the way they react to different diseases, the signs of the diseases are artificially induced on animals in an attempt to predict the human clinical follow-ups which result in shocking outcomes. In his article, Tatchell claims that many tragic results are being witnessed from blind faith in animal experiments, and states the tragic story of 76 people in Britain killed by the anti-rheumatic drug and the other 3500 who became ill by the same drug despite the drug having been approved after seven long years of animal research (“Why animal research is bad science,” 2004). Several reports demonstrate that little or no good has come from the decades of animal experimentation. According to an article about arguments against animal testing, annually over 115 million animals face experiments, and only 25 new medicines are approved globally each year ( Cruelty Free International, n.d.). That is only 0.00002% of the total number of animals involved in the experiments, which is a total waste.
Animal testing is an immoral and inhumane way of torturing and killing animals. The writer Peter Singer asks if experimenters would be ready to perform their experiment on “a human orphan under six months old if that were the only way to save thousands of lives?” He then criticizes their readiness to use animals as “unjustifiable form of discrimination on the basis of species." (“Philosophy of Animal Rights,” 2006). According-to BBC Animals are injected with irritating chemicals, genetically manipulated to cause painful genetic diseases, given cancer and other awful diseases like AIDS and forced to endure prolonged injuries eventually before being killed at the end of the experiment. For example, in 1997 Dr. Jay Vacanti and his team grew an ear on the back of a mouse (2014). Isn’t it immoral and inhumane to grow an ear over the back of a living mouse? Indeed, it is deliberately immoral.
Many people believe that animal testing is important for human species to survive the consequences of manufactured products’ toxicity. In some cases, this is true. For example, people would fall in danger if there wasn’t any animal testing. The writer Sun agrees with the fact that most of the cures and vaccines today are results of animal tests. Moreover, she believes that animal testing is beneficial even for animals and she listed a series of animal vaccines developed from animal testing (“The truth behind animal testing,” 2012). But, animal testing has never been a solution. It would be much more beneficial if scientists could work on computer modeling, a virtual modeling system used to check toxicity tests and more accurate than animal testing, in replacement for animals (“The truth behind animal testing,” 2012).
Animals are suffering the consequences of scientific experiments, and every second is precious for us to save animals from being harmed. Because animals can’t talk in our languages does not mean they do not feel pain. Someone must be a voice to the voiceless. It is time to act, time to raise awareness and stop cruelty. It is everyone’s responsibility to act against cruelty and inhumanity. Stop cruelty and save animals.
BBC. (2014). Ethics guide. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml
Cruelty-Free International. (n.d.). Arguments against animal testing. Retrieved from https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing
JB. (2006, November 13). Philosophy of Animal Rights. Retrieved from http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal%20Testing/AnimalTestingEssay.htm
Lone Star College System. (2016). The Woodlands TX 77381.
Lugo, A. (2016). Stop Animal Cruelty! Stop testing on innocent animals!!!. Retrieved from https://www.change.org/p/l-or%C3%A9al-stop-animal-cruelty-stop-testing-on-innocent-animals
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2016). Animals Are Not Ours. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/action/action-alerts/nih-pull-funding-cruel-abusive-primate-laboratory/
ProCon.org. (2016, May 24). animal-testing.procon.org. Retrieved from http://animal-testing.procon.org/
Rollin, B. E. (2007). talking point. Europian molecular biology organization.
Sun, S. (2012). The truth behind animal testing. Young Scientists Journal, 5 (12), 83-85.
Tatchell, P. (2004, August 09). Why animal research is bad science. new statesman, 17, 18-19. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224355621?accountid=15192
- Quote paper
- Henok Hayelom (Author), 2016, Animal Testing. Stop Using Animals for Scientific Research, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/354887