Animal Experimentation: A Necessity “Since more than 1. 4 million mammals other than rats and mice were used in research, and since mice and rats probably make up 90% of the animals in labs, we can guess that about 14 million rats and mice were used in research in 2002” (“11 Facts About Animal Testing”). One might assume 14 million is a lot of animals put to torture, but has one thought about what benefits come forth from the testing done? Has one thought that the animals being used are to gain valuable biological information rather than observing the animals being tortured for amusement?
While animal testing may seem unethical and inhumane, the practice should further continue due to the benefits contributed to one’s life. Animal experimentation is a necessity in the studies of medical research. Many say that there should be an alternative to finding cures other than testing on innocent animals, but what are the alternatives? Computers and virtual testing cannot analyze accurate results. As stated by David Hubel, the 1981 Nobel Price winner in medicine, “You can’t train a heart surgeon on a computer, and to study a brain, you need a brain; a man-made machine is no substitute. (Hurley Ed. ). Other methods for obtaining medical information would include testing on humans, but such method would be considered “much more inhumane”(“Animal Testing”). Human testing would only violate human rights, “animal research was designed to be—and is—a crucial human rights protection” (Smith). If one does not approve testing on animals, why would one approve testing on humans? “Animals are easily bred, and maintained safely in controlled labs. The costs of testing humans would be extremely high” (“Animal Testing”).
Also “testing drugs on humans take much longer time to conclude the results to the difference in length of life for lab animals and humans. ” (“Animal Testing”). On the other hand, “to ban experimentation would be to paralyze modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity. ”. (Dixon, Thomas). Since drug testing is essential among the United States citizens, discontinued testing for cures concerning deadly diseases and abnormalities such as cancer would create an epidemic.
According to the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, “There is not a person in the United States who has not somehow benefitted from the results of research involving animals. ” (Ed. Hurley, Jennifer A. ). “A rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy. ” (Smith, Wesley J. ). This particular quote is the reason animal rightists oppose the practice of animal experimentation. An animal rightist would believe that if a rat is killed, then it is equivalent to killing a boy.
But if animals were not used for experimentation, there would be no medical advancements. Animal rightists believe that “regardless of the admitted benefits humans receive from animal experimentation, the research much be stopped because it is immoral” to take a life. Just as it is immoral to kill another living human, it should be considered immoral to kill another living animal. Some also believe that “not only is animal research ethically wrong… but it actually provides no benefits to humans, and indeed, causes us significant harm. ” (Smith, Wesley J. . It has been proven by USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), that most animals used for testing annually provide no extraordinary breakthroughs or even consistent results. But trials may have to be done hundreds of times to provide accurate conclusions, “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work”, as stated by Thomas Edison. “Some of the tests certainly seem painful, but the majority of people on this planet eat meat or wear leather without any guilt. Where is their sympathy for animals? ” (“Animal Testing”).
Many accuse animal testing practitioners for engaging in animal cruelty and being unethical, but have they not thought about their daily non-vegetarian meals as cruelty of animal slaughtering? The nation has though taken actions to provide the best comfort for the animals being tested by making animal experimentaters “aspire to the highest levels of animal welfare in their labs, using anaesthetics whenever possible and keeping animals in clean, comfortable, and healthy conditions. ” (Dixon, Thomas). Also, “treating out fellow creatures as mercifully as possible” (“Animal Testing”) will demonstrate our humanity.
Although, “the lack of ethical self-examination in common and generally involved denial or avoidance of animal suffering , resulting in the dehumanization of researchers and the ethical degration of their research subjects” (“Animal Experimentation”), experimenters plan to provide a more safe mental and physical environment for the animals used. This way the experimenters can maintain their ‘humanity’ while medical advancements can still further continue. Those in favor of animal experiments say that the “good done to human beings outweighs the harm done to animals. Considering the breakthroughs that were created by animal experimentation, “it is morally acceptable to harm a few animals. ” (“Animal Experimentation”). The cures for polio and other epidemic diseases were found through animal testing, and if continued, would probably find future cures to other deadly diseases. “Disease prevention can never eliminate the need for medical research, and medical research will always need animals” (Ed. Hurley, Jennifer A. ). Bibliography “11 Facts about Animal Testing. “, Do Something. org. , Do Something. org. 03 May, 2007. Web. 21 April, 2010. “Animal experimentation. , BBC. , BBC. 19 October, 2009. Web. 10 April, 2010. “Animal Testing. ”. WriteFix, WriteFix. 15 January, 2006. Web. 03 April, 2010. Dixon, Thomas. “Animal Experimentation. ”. International Debate Education Association. 31 December, 1969. Web. 3 April, 2010. Hurley, Jennifer A. Ed. “Opposing Viewpoints Digests: Animal Rights. “, Gale Cengage Learning. , San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. , Print. Ricken, Jeffrey Dr. Personal interview by Jubin P. Shah. 10 April, 2010. Smith, Wesley J. , “New Medical Products Must be Tested in Living Organisms. ”, Opposing Views, Opposing Views. Web. 01 April, 2010.
