Should Animal Testing be Allowed?
Imagine living in a world that puts innocent animals through horrific conditions. These conditions include breaking the necks of animals and decapitating them (“Should”). This type of world exists and is present through animal testing. Animal testing has regulations. The regulations only cover a small percentage of animals. The issue is beginning to get worse since Britain has approved a facility for breeding beagles for the use of animal testing. The dogs will endure surgery, while the beagles are conscious (Willis). This paper will inform the audience on the pros and cons of animal testing. Animal testing does have some benefits; the benefits include furthering the medical field and ensuring the safety of products. Although there are benefits to animal testing, the drawbacks outweigh them. Researchers should not use animal testing because the animals live in terrible conditions, plus there are alternative methods. To begin with, the benefits of animal testing include furthering the medical field and ensuring the safety of new products. Many people believe that animal testing is necessary for human development. They believe there is not another alternative that will be as productive as animal testing (“Should”). On top of that, a great deal of cures for diseases are found through animal testing. For example, one of the first medications that was successful with eliminating breast cancer was through animal testing (“Animal Research”). Brain damage often occurs to those who receive wounds in war and those who experience a stroke. Scientists made the discovery of recovering damaged brain cells through animal testing (Trull). Insulin is one of the biggest discoveries of animal testing; it can now save the lives of many people (“Should”). The practice of animal testing proves that it is not only beneficial for humans, but animals too. The medicine to get rid of heartworms, which affect many dogs each year, was discovered through animal testing (Shandilya). Another strong point people supporting animal testing believe in is that the safety of products needs checking. No one wants to put another human in danger by using a defective product or to ensure that humans do not have allergic reactions or a bad response to a product. Medications and cosmetics are tested on animals to see if the animals respond negatively to products. Testing products on animals provides customers with a sense of safety. Companies who test their products on animals have a better competitive edge against companies who do not (Yau). In fact, cosmetics in China need to be tested on animals before they go out and into the market. People who support animal testing believe that the regulations will make sure that all the animals live in a healthy and happy …show more content…
New technology is changing the idea that animal testing is necessary. Artificial skin can replace the need for animal testing (“Alternatives”). The artificial skin is a good alternative for testing cosmetics on rather than using animals. The skin of animals varies from a human`s because the blood cells organize differently (Yau). The artificial skin gives a greater account on how people may react to certain cosmetics. The cosmetic company L’Oréal is going to test their products on artificial skin (Jacques). The artificial skin is cheaper than animal testing and could save many animals from the suffering defective products cause. In fact, ninety-four percent of products that pass animal testing, do not pass a clinical trial (“Should”). In other words, animal testing is not the most reliable choice. Human blood is another great alternative. Volunteers could donate blood and save the lives of many rabbits, since they are a main source for researchers to extract blood (“Alternatives”). A third example is a chip that replicates the function of lungs (Kharpal). Animals do not have to potentially have breathing problems to endure from medication testing. The US drug industry gives fifty billion a year for animal testing, but the government approves new drugs at the same rate that they were being approved at fifty years ago (“Arguments”). Animal testing is receiving more money from the government, but there is not much advancement with all the money. Animal testing should not be allowed because it is an ineffective method for checking the safety of products and there are cheaper
Imagine living in a world that puts innocent animals through horrific conditions. These conditions include breaking the necks of animals and decapitating them (“Should”). This type of world exists and is present through animal testing. Animal testing has regulations. The regulations only cover a small percentage of animals. The issue is beginning to get worse since Britain has approved a facility for breeding beagles for the use of animal testing. The dogs will endure surgery, while the beagles are conscious (Willis). This paper will inform the audience on the pros and cons of animal testing. Animal testing does have some benefits; the benefits include furthering the medical field and ensuring the safety of products. Although there are benefits to animal testing, the drawbacks outweigh them. Researchers should not use animal testing because the animals live in terrible conditions, plus there are alternative methods. To begin with, the benefits of animal testing include furthering the medical field and ensuring the safety of new products. Many people believe that animal testing is necessary for human development. They believe there is not another alternative that will be as productive as animal testing (“Should”). On top of that, a great deal of cures for diseases are found through animal testing. For example, one of the first medications that was successful with eliminating breast cancer was through animal testing (“Animal Research”). Brain damage often occurs to those who receive wounds in war and those who experience a stroke. Scientists made the discovery of recovering damaged brain cells through animal testing (Trull). Insulin is one of the biggest discoveries of animal testing; it can now save the lives of many people (“Should”). The practice of animal testing proves that it is not only beneficial for humans, but animals too. The medicine to get rid of heartworms, which affect many dogs each year, was discovered through animal testing (Shandilya). Another strong point people supporting animal testing believe in is that the safety of products needs checking. No one wants to put another human in danger by using a defective product or to ensure that humans do not have allergic reactions or a bad response to a product. Medications and cosmetics are tested on animals to see if the animals respond negatively to products. Testing products on animals provides customers with a sense of safety. Companies who test their products on animals have a better competitive edge against companies who do not (Yau). In fact, cosmetics in China need to be tested on animals before they go out and into the market. People who support animal testing believe that the regulations will make sure that all the animals live in a healthy and happy …show more content…
New technology is changing the idea that animal testing is necessary. Artificial skin can replace the need for animal testing (“Alternatives”). The artificial skin is a good alternative for testing cosmetics on rather than using animals. The skin of animals varies from a human`s because the blood cells organize differently (Yau). The artificial skin gives a greater account on how people may react to certain cosmetics. The cosmetic company L’Oréal is going to test their products on artificial skin (Jacques). The artificial skin is cheaper than animal testing and could save many animals from the suffering defective products cause. In fact, ninety-four percent of products that pass animal testing, do not pass a clinical trial (“Should”). In other words, animal testing is not the most reliable choice. Human blood is another great alternative. Volunteers could donate blood and save the lives of many rabbits, since they are a main source for researchers to extract blood (“Alternatives”). A third example is a chip that replicates the function of lungs (Kharpal). Animals do not have to potentially have breathing problems to endure from medication testing. The US drug industry gives fifty billion a year for animal testing, but the government approves new drugs at the same rate that they were being approved at fifty years ago (“Arguments”). Animal testing is receiving more money from the government, but there is not much advancement with all the money. Animal testing should not be allowed because it is an ineffective method for checking the safety of products and there are cheaper