Millions of rats, mice, rabbits, dogs, cats, etc., are tested upon in laboratories, for cosmetic and medical research every year. While animal rights activists strongly oppose animal experimentation for the benefit of mankind, medical researchers strongly claim that animal testing has spearheaded the development of various vaccines and drugs. Let's find out more about the pros and cons of animal testing from the articles given below.
However, many people believe that animal testing is justified because the animals are sacrificed to make products safer for human use and consumption. The problem with this reasoning is that the animals' safety, well-being, and quality of life is generally not a consideration. Experimental animals are virtually tortured to death, and all of these tests are done in the interest of human welfare, without any thought to how the animals are treated. Others respond that animals themselves benefit from animal research. Yet in an article entitled "Is Your Experiment Really Necessary?" Sheila Silcock, a research consultant for the RSPCA, states: "Animals may themselves be the beneficiaries of animal experiments. But the value we place on the quality of their lives is determined by their perceived value to humans" (34). Making human's lives better should not be justification for torturing and exploiting animals. The value that humans place on their own lives should be extended to the lives of animals as well.
History of animal testing - Wikipedia
Finally, the testing of products on animals is completely unnecessary because viable alternatives are available. Many cosmetic companies, for example, have sought better ways to test their products without the use of animal subjects. In , a pamphlet published by The Body Shop, a well-known cosmetics and bath-product company based in London, the development of products that "use natural ingredients, like bananas and Basil nut oil, as well as others with a long history of safe human usage" is advocated instead of testing on animals (3). Furthermore, the Draize test has become practically obsolete because of the development of a synthetic cellular tissue that closely resembles human skin. Researchers can test the potential damage that a product can do to the skin by using this artificial "skin" instead of testing on animals. Another alternative to this test is a product called Eyetex. This synthetic material turns opaque when a product damages it, closely resembling the way that a real eye reacts to harmful substances. Computers have also been used to simulate and estimate the potential damage that a product or chemical can cause, and human tissues and cells have been used to examine the effects of harmful substances. In another method, testing, cellular tests are done inside a test tube. All of these tests have been proven to be useful and reliable alternatives to testing products on live animals. Therefore, because effective means of product toxicity testing are available without the use of live animal specimens, testing potentially deadly substances on animals is unnecessary.
20/03/2017 · Controversy: Animal testing
Explaining the UK Government's capitulation to commercial interests and betrayal of animals. Our Vote4Animals projects led the way in showing how the public could use their votes to represent animals.
along with general news and views relating to animal experiments, ..
Still other people think that animal testing is acceptable because animals are lower species than humans and therefore have no rights. These individuals feel that animals have no rights because they lack the capacity to understand or to knowingly exercise these rights. However, animal experimentation in medical research and cosmetics testing cannot be justified on the basis that animals are lower on the evolutionary chart than humans since animals resemble humans in so many ways. Many animals, especially the higher mammalian species, possess internal systems and organs that are identical to the structures and functions of human internal organs. Also, animals have feelings, thoughts, goals, needs, and desires that are similar to human functions and capacities, and these similarities should be respected, not exploited, because of the selfishness of humans. Tom Regan asserts that "animals are subjects of a life just as human beings are, and a subject of a life has inherent value. They are . . . ends in themselves" (qtd. in Orlans 26). Therefore, animals' lives should be respected because they have an inherent right to be treated with dignity. The harm that is committed against animals should not be minimized because they are not considered to be "human."
The 6 Craziest Animal Experiments - Live Science
During a 2002 House of Lords select committee inquiry into animal testing in the UK, witnesses agreed that the UK has the tightest regulatory system in the world, and is the only country to require a cost-benefit assessment of every licence application. There are 29 qualified inspectors covering 230 establishments, which are visited on average 11-12 times a year. (See also .)
Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing - Lone Star …
U.S. philosopher Tom Regan went even farther in his 1983 text "The Case for Animal Rights." In it, he argued that animals were individual beings just as humans are, with emotions and intellect. In the following decades, organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and retailers such as The Body Shop have become strong anti-testing advocates.