When it comes to the topic of animal testing, most of us will readily agree that it is a debatable topic. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the conversation if animal testing is necessary. Whereas some are convinced that using animals for testing has contributed to many lifesaving cures and treatments, others maintain that these animals are very different from humans and, therefore, make poor test subjects. My own view is these animals have produced many treatments, but not outcomes that are effective enough in the human body, therefore should not be using animals.
Most people believe animals are inferior to humans, and make poor test subjects because of how different they are. Animals being tested on by scientists want us to believe that without the use of these animals we wouldn’t have the proper and sufficient way of finding cures for diseases. Animals are playing an important role in our society today, but it is not the only way to experiment on animals. Animals are not similar enough to test on because how different they’re DNA is from the human body.
According to the article “Animal Testing is Bad Science” it states, “Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses”(1). In other words, animals are inadequate for verification on whether they will be useful for humans or not. Testing on animals is a way to save a human life, but how can we be so positive that these animals will be acceptable to determine saving one’s life.
A number of scientists have recently suggested that testing on animals has had several fundamental problems. According to Aysha Akhtar, a neurologist, and public health specialist have declared, ‘We can no longer rely on studies on mice and rats. It is now imperative that we focus on human islets. At the end of the day, it is the only way to understand how they function” (1). I agree that we should no longer rely on animals for testing, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that it is the most treatable substance.
It is the difference between animals and humans that make complications in the outcome of the substance being given to them. Animals might have similarities within their DNA, but it comes down to the fewest flaws that are taken into a new perspective causing the drug not to work on a human. Ultimately, what is at stake here is the lives that are being taken from animals due to poor test results concluding in millions of deaths.
A new body of research from The National Research Council in the United States, “has expressed its vision of “a-not-so-distant future in which virtually all routine toxicity testing would be conducted in human cells or cell lines,” and science leaders around the world have echoed this view” (About Animal Testing1). My discussion of this article is in fact addressing the larger matter that we can find another way to put a stop to animal testing, by making up human cell lines that are very similar to the human body.
Although this may seem of concern to only a small group of people, it should, in fact, concern anyone who cares about the lives of animals and what they are physically and mentally doing to them. Recent studies, like these, shed new light on a better and productive way to test new drugs on, which previous studies have not addressed. Scientists have been so stuck on testing animals that they don’t think of an alternative way because they don’t see any harm in the suffering of these animals.
Dr. Herbert Hensel, Director of the Institute of Physiology at Marburg University states, “In the opinion of leading biostatisticians, is not possible to transfer the probability predictions from animals to humans…. the situation is even less favorable than a game of chance” (Against Animal Testing1). Basically, he is saying that the odds of the treatment being worked for an animal, then be transformed into a human have a very low chance of working. Studies have shown that giving a drug to an animal and finding a cure has not worked on humans, which only shows that animals are not similar to humans, therefore, make poor test results.
Do you know what happens to animals who even pass it through the experiment? They are still putting them down even if the experiment works just to see what damage it has caused on the inside of these animals. Most of these animals don’t make it out alive even if the drug works on them, but how is that fair? Why is it fair that we risk so many lives of animals for the right of a couple human lives? Studies show that “Test animals may develop tumors or other nasty conditions, and are often killed intentionally at some point in the test so scientists can examine the animals’ innards for signs of damage” (An Easy Call 1).
To sum it down, every animal that is held for testing doesn’t make it out alive. They examine every little thing, meaning killing them just to see what it did to the inside of their intestines. Scientists should be able to work on the procedures of the drugs to make sure the animals do not suffer as much as they already do. Animals should be limited and not be wasted, to save more animal lives then take away. Those who are for animal testing tend to agree that it is safe and is an effective way to determine he outcome of a cure.
According to lan Murnaghan, “It is for the reason that animal testing is considered vital for improving human health and it is also why the scientific community and many members of the public support its use” (1). Although || agree with Murnaghan up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that animal testing is the best solution and method to cure treatments. Some people are for animal testing and come to believe that it is the most beneficial way to preventing treatments.
According to Colin Blakemore, “Biologically, we are similar to species such as mice and rats, because we have practically the same set of genes. Their bodies respond to disease and treatments much as ours do” (Blakemore1). The reason for Blakemore’s argument is to tell us that animal testing is very profitable and has made a huge impact. But Colin is putting aside the real significance of testing on animals. There is always an alternative for testing on animals, such as advanced computer-modeling techniques created by PETA taking less time and oney to complete.
Although I grant that animal testing is effective in some ways, I still maintain that it is not the best or the safest solution for animals. Animals also are a living beings and feel the same pain we feel. We have all this technology in today’s society that we should be able to put together more suitable and useful methods to determine the outcome of a cure. You would think there would already be an alternative way to substitute animals, but scientists believe that it is the most adequate way to treat a disease.
