Animal Testing: Pros & Cons of a Controversial Practice - Essay Sample

Introduction

Animal testing for the past century has played a fundamental role in various medical and scientific developments. It has helped in the understanding and testing possible medications and vaccines of different diseases (Sikes & Gannon, 2011). Thus, this has resulted in improved value of life. However, using animals in both medical and scientific experiments has caused intensive debate for long. Different people have different feelings for animals. For example, opposers of animal testing view animals as pets while its supporters look upon them as a way of improving experimental research or advancing medical practices. Besides, its opposers consider animal testing as cruel and immoral. The anti-vivisectionist and animal-rights extremist groups are among the opponents of animal research. They hold that animal testing is unnecessary irrespective of their benefit and purpose to humans. Although supporters of animal testing believe it is significant in research that helps researchers and scientists test vaccines and medicines, its opposers hold that it is unethical since it causes suffering and pain to animals, violates their rights, places them in unnatural habitats, it is unproductive, and some alternative methods are available that can be used in its place.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

A significant reason that makes animal testing unethical is the suffering and pain caused to animals used in laboratory experiments (Larauche et al., 2012). According to Sikes and Gannon (2011), thousands of animals suffer and die annually in the U.S in brutal chemical, food, and drug experiments, as well as in medicinal training exercises. They undergo considerable distress and pain within these medical and laboratory testing procedures and routines. They also languish in extreme loneliness, frustration, and desire to acquire freedom. Nonetheless, all they can do is to stay and wait for a painful experience and death that they will be subjected to during laboratory experiments (Larauche et al., 2012). Therefore, the absence of freedom and stressful living conditions cause some of the animals to develop anxious behaviors such as swaying, removing their fur, and biting themselves, as well as perpetually rotating in circles. Besides, after going through the painful experiences, nearly all the experimental animals lose their lives because of the toxic products injected in their bodies. Besides, the reaction of both humans and animals to pain is also virtually the same. Therefore, animals do not deserve to feel pain and suffering for the benefits of humans in medical advances.

Furthermore, animal testing is unethical since it results in a violation of animal rights. All animals have a right to be treated with respect (Humphreys, 2016). Besides, this vital principle is dishonored once they are downgraded to laboratory devices and used in scientific experiments. Humphreys (2016) argues that people and animals have some similarities in various aspects. For instance, he adds that both have feelings. Therefore, he concludes that animals need to be accorded equal respect and treatment as human beings. However, animal rights are infringed during medical research when they are used in medicine and vaccine testing (Humphreys, 2016). They are exposed to experiments that are frequently excruciating and, in most cases, lead to long-lasting damage or even death, but they do not have a choice. Besides, animals do not sacrifice themselves willingly to help people seek vaccines and medicines. People make decisions on their behalf since they are unable to express their specific choices and preferences. When people choose the animals' destiny during experiments, they fail to think about animal welfare and the value of their lives (Humphreys, 2016). Thus, this presents animal testing as unethical since it violates their rights despite animals lacking the capacity to make decisions.

Animal testing also places animals in environments that are different from their natural habitats. Thus, this results in animals having diverse adaptations to the new surroundings (Rook, 2013). Subsequently, these adaptations in various experiments have influenced animals to display diverse reactions to medicines, vaccines, and other chemicals in comparison to if they were in their natural environment. Therefore, these tests, in the end, give diverse outcomes, which are different compared to those anticipated by researchers and scientists. In most cases, researchers may not comprehend that modifying or changing animals' natural habitant impact their reaction to such tests (Rook, 2013). Nevertheless, the outcomes received when human beings use the products tested using such animals are diverse compared to those intended. Therefore, the utilization of medicines, vaccines, and other chemicals tested using animals confined in modified habitats pose health threats to humans.

Opposers of animal testing also claim that it should be abolished since, in most cases, it has proven unproductive. Numerous laboratories and companies have utilized animals in testing their vaccines, medicines, and cosmetics products (Sikes & Gannon, 2011). Nonetheless, the results displayed by the animals may be different from those exhibited by human beings when they utilize the same products. Besides, this occurrence may be attributed to the diverse body and skin types between human beings and animals. Scientifically, the body and skin of animals and that of human beings are composed of different cells and genes (Kostic et al., 2013). Thus, the vaccines, medicines, and cosmetics tested using animals provide different outcomes when utilized on humans. A significant factor that may also be linked to this discrepancy is the types of skin between animals and human beings (Kostic et al., 2013). Whereas human beings take shelter in houses, animals, particularly in experiments conducted outdoors, are exposed to severe weather conditions both during the day and night. Besides, the resistance to medicine, cosmetics, and vaccines in animals is a bit higher compared to human beings. Therefore, following this claim, the use of animals appears less or not productive in testing vaccines, medicines, and cosmetics.

There are also alternative methods that can be used in place of animal testing, which has proven to be viable (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). Such methods are not only more humane but also are faster, cheaper, and accurate. According to Adler et al. (2011) most cosmetic companies, for instance, have adopted other methods of testing their products that evade the use of animals. Besides, in opposing animal testing, a famous cosmetic company based in London, advocates for the use of natural ingredients such as Basil nut oil and bananas among others approach with a past of harmless human usage other than on experimenting animals (Adler et al., 2011). Moreover, the advancement of artificial cellular tissue that looks like the human skin has made the Draize test obsolete practically (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). Researchers and scientists can experiment with possible damages caused by chemicals to human skin the use of artificial skin rather than using animals for testing. Computers can also be utilized to assess and simulate the possible harm caused by a chemical or a substance (Doke & Dhawale, 2015). They can be utilized in observing the impact of vaccines and medicine on humanoid cells and tissues. Similarly, the cellular test can also be performed in test tubes in vitro testing (Dehne et al., 2017). All of the aforementioned experiments have proven to be important and consistent options in testing different products rather than using animals. Thus, due to the availability of effective alternatives to test the toxicity of various products such as vaccines, medicines, and cosmetics in the absence of utilizing animal specimens, it is unnecessary to continue using animal testing.

Despite the presence of different critics concerning animal testing, its supporters still believe that it is acceptable since it helps researchers and scientists test vaccines and medicines. Animal experimentation is a significant move that intends to ensure that specific drugs and vaccines are safe before using them for human usage (Sikes & Gannon, 2011). Despite the availability of some alternative methods that may be utilized to find out the efficiency of medicines, vaccines, and other chemicals, there is an increased demand for animal testing procedures. This is primarily to determine the effectiveness of such vaccines and drugs. Besides, negative results from animal testing prove that the chemical product used has not attained the required standards. As a result, this ensures that medicines, vaccines, and other chemicals are not released for use before the desired results are attained in the experiments involving the use of animals (Sikes & Gannon, 2011). Therefore, animal testing plays a crucial role in testing the validity and efficiency of medicines, vaccines, and other chemicals both for human usage and consumption, which further facilitates in avoiding harmful effects to their bodies.

There is an intense argument about animal testing that has caused intense debate worldwide for a long time. Most people support it while others oppose it. Besides, those who oppose animal testing claim that it is unethical since it causes suffering and pain to animals used in laboratory experiments through the injection of medicines, vaccines, and other chemicals that may toxic to their bodies. They also claim that animal testing violates the rights of an animal, for example, to be treated with respect despite being unable to express themselves. Its opposers also claim that animal testing positions animals in a modified and harsh environment different from their natural habitats, which makes them display diverse adaptations that may affect the projected results, and in turn, the tested medicines, vaccines, and other chemicals pose health threats to humans. They also claim that animal testing is unproductive since the results displayed by the animals may be different from those exhibited by human beings when they utilize the same products. Opposers of animal testing also claim that there are alternative methods that can be used in place of animal testing, which has proven to be viable, which makes it unnecessary. Despite the presence of numerous claims opposing animal testing, some people support it and argue that it is it helps researchers and scientists test the validity and safety of vaccines and medicines before using them on human beings. Due to many negative effects associated with animal testing, it should be abolished, or clear guidelines are published to guide on cases that it is impossible to avoid their use.

References

Adler, S., Basketter, D., Creton, S., Pelkonen, O., Van Benthem, J., Zuang, V., ... & Benfenati, E. (2011). Alternative (non-animal) methods for cosmetics testing: current status and future prospects—2010. Archives of toxicology, 85(5), 367-485. Retrieved May 23, 2020, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-011-0693-2

Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 24(4), 407-419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180115000079

Dehne, E. M., Hasenberg, T., & Marx, U. (2017). The ascendance of microphysiological systems to solve the drug testing dilemma. Future Science OA, 3(2), FSO0185. https://doi.org/10.4155/fsoa-2017-0002

Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23(3), 223-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002

Humphreys, R. (2016). Dignity and its violation examined within the context of animal ethics. Ethics and the Environment, 21(2), 143-162. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/ethicsen...