Está en la página 1de 2

Animal Testing Introduction The application of animals to test a large number of products from household compounds and cosmetics

to Pharmaceutical products has been considered to be a normal strategy for many years. Laboratory animals are generally used in three primary fields: biomedical research, product security evaluation and education. It has been estimated that approximately, 20 million animals are being used for testing and are illed annually! about "# million of them are used to test for medication and five million for other products. $eports have been generated to indicate that about "0 percent of these animals are not being administered %ith pain illers. The supporters of animal rights are pressuri&ing government agencies to inflict severe regulations on animal research. 'o%ever, such emerging criticisms of painful experimentation on animals are coupled %ith an increasing concern over the cost it %ould have on the limitation of scientific progress. (round the %orld, animals are utili&ed to test products ranging from shampoo to ne% cancer drugs. )ach and every medication used by humans is first tested on the animals. (nimals %ere also applied to develop anesthetics to ease human ailments and suffering during surgery. *urrently, +uestions have been raised about the ethics surround animal testing. (s a result several regulations have been put in place to evaluate and control the animals being used for testing purposes. These regulations hope to ensure that such research is carried out in a humanely and ethical manner. (cceptance of such experimentations is sub,ect to a lot of argumentation. (s the statistics indicate animal testing is dangerous and harmful, but medical research must continue. -e need to find other testing techni+ues that are advanced in order to eliminate this harmful process, till then all %e can do is continue %ith our research. Arguments for testing The supporters of animal testing argue that if animal testing is eliminated, that many of the medications and procedures that %e currently use today %ould exist and the development of future treatments %ould be extremely limited. They argue that humans have been assisted from the healthcare developments that have been based on the benefits of animal research and testing for many years no%. .upporters for animal testing argue that research is ,ustified because it assists in discovering %ays to help people and other animals for the future. .urgery on animals has assisted in developing organ transplant and open/heart surgery techni+ues. (nimal testing has also assisted in developing vaccines against diseases li e rabies, polio, measles etc. 0evelopment of antibiotics, 'I1 drugs, insulin and cancer treatments depend upon animal tests. They argue that other testing techni+ues are not advanced enough. The most radical progress in reproductive medicine such as oral contraceptives, in vitro fertili&ation, hormone replacement therapy, etc., have all been made possible by animal research. (nimal testing not only benefits humans but also helps other animals, for example the heart%orm medication that %as devised from research on animals has assisted many dogs. The cat nutrition has been better comprehended through animal research and has assisted cats to live longer and healthier lives. Those %ho support animal testing argue that the society has an obligation to ta e actions in %ays that %ill minimi&e in,ury and maximi&e benefits. 2anning or restraining the experimentation on animals %ould not allo% society to achieve such results. It is assumed that a scientist3s goal is to devise methods to minimi&e pain to every extent possible but for no% %e have to sacrifice on animals to achieve this result. (ctivists against this practice portray scientists to be a society of cra&y, cruel, curiosity see ers. 'o%ever, %hen one feeds pain illers to animals, one should as %here they came from and %hat their purpose is. Is it to improve the +uality of human life4 Those %ho support this procedure argue that the advantages that animal testing has brought to humans is considered a lot greater in comparison to the costs in terms of the sufferings inflicted on comparatively less number of animals. They argue that society is re+uired to maximi&e the opportunities to generate such valuable conse+uences even at the cost of inflicting pain to some animals. 5oreover, many argue that the lives of animals may be %orthy of some respect, but the value %e give on their lives does not count as much as the value %e give to human life. 'uman beings are considered living beings that have the capability and sensibility that is much higher than animals. 6or example if %e %ere put in a dilemma of saving a dro%ning baby and a dro%ning rat is it almost definite that our instincts %ill guide us to save the baby first. Is it universally assumed that humans do not treat the animals as our moral e+uivalents. (s humans it is assumed that %e have a moral re+uirement to prevent any animals of unnecessary suffering. 'o%ever, as far as animal testing is concerned %e are confronted %ith the moral dilemma of a choice bet%een the %elfare of humans or the %elfare of animals. .ome supporters of animal testing argue that moral rights and principles of ,ustice apply only to human beings. 5orality is considered as a social creation out of its eventual process in %hich %e do not associate animals. 5oral rights and moral principles are applicable to those %ho are part of the moral community generated by this social process. (s animals are not part of this moral community created by these social processes our moral obligations do not extend to cover them. 'o%ever, %e do have moral obligations to our fello% human being that involve the liability to decline and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths that in turn may entail the painful tests on animals.

Arguments against testing The critics of animal testing base their argument on the grounds of morality, the necessity or the validity of this procedure, %hether proper authority to perform such tests is granted, %hether such tests are actually needed and %hether such tests practically provide us %ith any useful information. The supporters of animal rights say that animals have the right to live their o%n life peacefully! and %e are not allo%ed to meddle %ith them ,ust because %e can. 0eaths through research are considered unnecessary and are morally not different from murder. (rguments against animal testing may generate at least t%o different arguments. .ome believe that the goals of this type of testing are not significant. The blinding of rabbits to have a ne% ind of mascara is yet to be ,ustified. 7thers argue that the reaction of an animal to a drug is +uite different than that of a human being. (nimals are involved in testing the products such as cleaning products that assist humans less than medicines or surgery. The fact that the results attained from experiments on animal testing do not accurately portray their influence on humans is

considered to be a one of the serious argument against the animal testing. 'umans are +uite different from other animals, so the conse+uences of animal testing may not applicable to humans. They argue that they %ay one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular %ay does not necessarily entail other species %ill react in the same %ay.

My Stance: The arguments for and against animal experimentation are going to continue for some time, both bet%een the general public and those directly involved. Those %ho oppose animal testing believe that all testing associated %ith the use of laboratory animals should be banned immediately. 'o%ever, one could argue by saying that a total ban on the use of animals %ill prevent a great deal of basic medical research, and the possible production of certain vaccines. 8o ne% medicines %ould develop and the safety of %or ers, the general public and patients %ould be at sta e. 7n the other hand, the supporters of animal testing say that humans have al%ays benefited from the health care developments that depended upon the accomplishments of animal research and %ould continue to benefits from animal testing. 'o%ever, some argue that testing for cosmetics and household materials is not ade+uate enough to gain support for this argument. There is a lot of pain that these animals have to undergo for testing! hence animal testing cannot be supported. 2ut at the same time all animal testing cannot be banned immediately because it is our only successful channel to develop medicines and cures. Conclusion: -hile there has been promise to find alternatives to animal testing, the best researchers can do for no% is try to reduce the number of animals being used. They can resort to ne% scanning technologies li e magnetic $esonance Imaging, %hich can assist doctors to learn about disease from human patients %ithout the actual necessity for invasive surgery, or animal experimentation. *omputer models can be used to devise the reaction of a drug to the animal, as a result it %ould eliminate the necessity for live animal experimentations. The development to the extensive application of substitutes to animal experimentation %ill persistently gain momentum as people become more a%are about the problem. Though it is hard to eliminate animal testing completely, consumers can prevent the unnecessary animal testing by boycotting certain products that don3t necessary re+uire animal testing. To conclude, all %e has humans can do no% is to try to reduce the number of animals being harmed in these experiments aimed at benefiting society.