Arguments Against Animal Research

When it comes to the topic of animal cruelty, there is a debate as to whether or not it is necessary. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether or not animal research predicts human outcome. Whereas some are convinced that animal experimentation helps improve human health, others maintain that it is cruel causing unnecessary suffering towards animals. My own view is that animal research is unnecessary and does not predict human outcomes. It has become common to think that animal testing is necessary, but each year, millions of animals are killed in laboratories for drug, chemical, and cosmetic testing. Some animals are forced to breathe toxic fumes, while others have holes drilled into their skulls, causing pain and suffering. Some scientists use the excuse that animal testing has benefited human life, but by focusing on the justification that scientists have given, Americans overlook the deeper problem of animal research. According to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, “nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies” (American Anti-Vivisection …show more content…
In other words, Hartinger is basically saying that researchers don’t actually believe that animal testing is necessary. Conventional wisdom has it that scientists believe that there is no alternative to animal testing. For some scientists, they have gotten used to the idea of using animals for research and refuse to look at the unpredictable outcomes that animal testing has. Addition to the unpredictable outcomes that animal testing has, animal experimentation also causes animals unnecessary