Animal Testing: Finding an Alternative

Introduction

These days, ecological problems present a pressing concern, and for this reason, a harmless attitude to nature, the planet, and animals is becoming an increasing trend among contemporary people. This tendency also regards animal testing, which is common in the beauty industry and medical field. According to Procon.org, “an estimated 26 million animals are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing” (2).

These facts raise concerns of a significant number of people, who believe that it is possible to find a less cruel alternative to this procedure in the context of present-day development. I support this thesis too and consider that there is no necessity to make animals suffer. This way, the purpose of this paper is to review the supporting arguments for this position, refer to Believing Game of Peter Elbow, and present my reflections in this respect.

Supporting Arguments

First of all, the prohibition against animal testing is based on humane motives. Predominantly, such experiments include “force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies” (Procon.org, 1). The US Department of Agriculture mentions that more than 300,000 animals were involved in explorations, which are associated with pain (Procon.org, 1). Secondly, there is no need for suffering, as there is a possibility to leverage alternative methods of testing, which exist in present-day developments (Sonali & Shashikant, 3). For instance, scientists may stick to in vitro testing, which implies the usage of human cells and tissue (Procon.org, 1). In addition, 3D printing technology allows to creation an example of human tissue.

Finally, there are huge differences between animal and human organisms, and for this reason, their results cannot be as reliable as it is expected. Procon.org mentions: “Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that “it’s very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human” (1). The aspects regarding anatomy, metabolism, and cellular structure of animals are not similar to those of people. The reasons for the animal testing prohibition, which are presented above, appear to be creditable and convincing, as they regard such important issues as ethics and justification of this method used.

Believing Questions

In order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the position against this event, the theory of Peter Elbow on Believing Game should be applied. Therefore, it is essential to review the arguments mentioned earlier from the perspective of “believing” questions advanced by the author (Peter Elbow, 2). The reasons are helpful in paying attention to the feelings and experience of animals, which may appear to be unnecessary in some cases.

While exploring this position to this issue, it possible to notice that animal testing may supply unreliable results due to the specifics of a particular organism. However, the idea of the prohibition against such procedures may be implemented only in case there is enough evidence that alternative options are effective to a large extent. This position does not imply the likelihood of mistakes in scientific experiments or the fact that artificial tissue may react to particular chemicals differently compared to an alive organism.

Biases

While reviewing the arguments against animal testing, it is possible to notice some biases. For instance, this position does not take into consideration the fact that animals in laboratories may be treated without violence. Some of the experiments do not involve forcing animals to food or water deprivation and exploring dangerous chemicals (Conor et al., 4).

Moreover, as has been mentioned earlier, the total prohibition of animal testing does not involve the fact that objects, which are created artificially, are not capable of reacting to particular conditions as alive organisms do. Despite being close to the human cells and tissues, it lacks other crucial aspects, such as state and feelings in particular circumstances, for instance, high blood pressure and headache (Conor et al., 4). In addition, artificial cells and tissues do not include the specifics of human blood, its content, and others. Therefore, they cannot substitute experiments on alive organism comprehensively.

As for the points, which are highly likely to influence these biases, attention should be paid to the current enculturation, which emphasizes the importance of preserving nature and treating animals carefully. For this reason, it is possible not to mention some concerns associated with animal testing prohibition. In addition, it prevents from searching for a balanced solution for this issue and makes to stick to a radical position against such procedures.

Conclusion

In summary, it should be noted that after applying the Believing Game advanced by Peter Elbow, my opinion on this issue has altered to some extent. At the beginning of the writing, I was convinced that there was no necessity to leverage animals in order to conduct experiments due to the cruelty of this process. However, the approach of Peter Elbow allowed me to see the problem from another perspective and adhere to a less radical position, which implies the balance between total prohibition and permission without particular restrictions.

Works Cited

1. Peter Elbow. 2006. The Believing Game and How to Make Conflicting Opinions More Fruitful. p. 13-22. Web.
2. Procon. 2020. Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?. Web.
3. Sonali K. Doke & Shashikant C. Dhawale. 2015. Alternatives to animal testing: A review. p. 223-229. Web.
4. Conor J. Moran, Ashwanth Ramesh, Pieter A. J. Brama, John M. O’Byrne, Fergal J. O’Brien & Tanya J. Levingstone. 2016. The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in cartilage repair. Web.