Animal testing has been prominent throughout history, with controversy always riding its tail. Is animal testing morally okay? This one question sits at the back of everyone’s mind when broaching the subject, because on one hand, the thought of a living creature in pain by the hands of a human would make any empath squirm. Then on the other, where would we be without animal testing? It has shaped our society today, and hypothetically, could you really tell a child dying of cancer that there is no hope of recovery, because you don’t want to test the cures on a mouse or a monkey? The logical even medium is to allow scientific research to be conducted on animals, but only with certain pre concluded restrictions applied to all testing facilities and collages. No animal should ever be purposefully subdued to extreme amounts of pain, and the testing of cosmetics on animals needs to be banned, since it’s quite obviously a frivolous inneccesety. WRITE MORE TAKE OUT CONJOINED WORDSResearch conducted on animals to further the worlds scientific perception is just one side effect of humans natural instinct to constantly evolve. The method of using animals for research is simply the most effective one in our world today, and since we always go with what is most effective, we have animal testing.
Many of our most important advancements are due to experiments run on animals, without it, we would be less developed. “Pick any drug you’ve heard of; it was probably tested on a rat,” Newsweek medical reporter John Ericson wrote. Between “Supporters argue that animal testing has been directly responsible for some of the most important scientific discoveries and medical innovations in modern history. Ample regulations are in place, they assert, to protect animals from unnecessary pain and suffering. Alternative testing techniques, they add, are simply not as effective.” (Animal Testing: Is animal testing morally justified?) Countless medical and scientific breakthroughs, they maintain, are directly attributable to animal research. “Virtually every medical breakthrough in the past century has involved some animal research,” Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR), a nonprofit organization that supports animal testing, wrote in Businessweek in 2008. She continued: “Each day, dedicated scientists are using animal models to find cures for the diseases and conditions that ravage all cultures.
From antibiotics to blood transfusions, dialysis to organ transplantation, vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery, and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure, and control of disease, pain, and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with laboratory animals. Animal research is saving both human and animal lives every day.”Though animal testing is important, there should still be a distinct line drawn. For facilities, legal protection for commonly used mice, rats, and birds will only significantly affect facilities with substandard animal care and use programs. In the interests of better science and more humane animal care, such institutions should upgrade to the minimal standards that will be promulgated by the USDA rulemaking procedures.
AAALAC and the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) both supported the efforts to include rats, mice, and birds under the regulations of the Animal Welfare Act. AALAS noted that “the political and economic rationale that led to the exclusion in the (Animal Welfare Act) of the vast majority of animals used in research is ethically indefensible.” AAALAC went further by stating that “we can identify no philosophical or scientific reason for excluding these species from USDA regulatory oversight.” These two strongly pro-animal research organizations would not have supported these efforts if a successful settlement were a danger to research institutions, investigators, laboratory animals, or students. Misguided efforts to block our historic settlement with the USDA would force biomedical research to take a step backward.Though alternative testing methods exsist, they arent nearly as effective. Although present-day technology cannot yet replace many types of animal research, the research community is committed to finding new ways to reduce and replace animal testing. This ethical commitment is embodied in strict animal welfare protocols at most university, government and industrial laboratories.
Even animal testing has it’s flaws.The National Institutes of Health have reported that more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that have passed animal testing failed in human clinical trials.Opponents of animal testing argue that it is self-evidently immoral and unnecessary. Human beings, they contend, have no right to impose their will on animals in such a way. “Animals are not ours to use for experimentation,” Alistair Currie, a policy adviser for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), wrote in the Independent in 2012. “They feel pain and fear just as we do, and their overwhelming natural inclinations—like ours—are to be free and to protect their own lives, not to be locked in a small cage inside a laboratory, where they are subjected to abuse and suffering that would be illegal if they took place anywhere else.” Many of the tests performed on animals in the name of science, opponents maintain, are downright barbaric, rendering their subjects damaged and disfigured. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) neurologist Aysha Akhtar described an animal testing facility in the Huffington Post in 2014, noting that, “As soon as you walk into a laboratory, you can’t help but notice the rows and rows of barren cages holding sad animals living under the glare of fluorescent bulbs.
Their bodies are burned, mutilated and scarred. Animals who have had their heads crushed grip their faces and convulse as blood pours out of their noses. You can smell and taste the stench of blood, feces and fear.”