Print Сite this

Scientific Testing on Animals

Introduction

Although human beings usually gain from scientific testing on animals, their distress, pain, and death do not match the likely benefits. Irrespective of animal subjects having been used in scientific research for a long time, the practice is cruel and should not continue. Researchers across the globe share their perspectives and beliefs regarding the need for scientific testing on animals (Rice, 2019). Animals should not be subjected to testing of any form not only because it results in suffering, but also due to the existence of other humane options and test products.

We will write a
custom essay
specifically for you

for only $16.05 $11/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More

Context

Some researchers feel that animal testing is warranted since they are sacrificed to ensure that products made are safe for human consumption. However, such reasoning fails to consider the welfare, safety, and quality of life of such animals. In scientific research, animal subjects are tortured with disregard to the cruelty of the practice (Amorim & Shikanov, 2016). The betterment of the lives of human beings should not be validation for torturing and exploiting animals. The significance placed by people on their lives ought to be extended to animals too.

Con-Points

The rights of animals are violated when they are used in scientific testing since they have a fundamental moral justification for reverential treatment. Animals’ inherent rights are not cherished when they are reduced to mere tools in experiments and have no choice of not participating in the test. Zengin (2018) affirms that animal experimentation is ethically wrong regardless of how much human beings might gain since the basic right of animals is violated. When scientists decide on the use of animals in experiments, they do so devoid of the thought of their safety. The use of animals in scientific testing should be stopped since it infringes their rights and risks their well-being.

Some human drugs that have effectively undergone animal testing may not essentially be safe. For example, thalidomide, a sleeping pill manufactured in the 1950s, resulted in more than 10,000 infants being born with severe deformities despite having successfully worked on animal subjects. Rice (2019) asserts that later testing on pregnant animals such as guinea pigs, rats, and mice did not lead to birth defects unless the medication was given in exceedingly high dosages. Animal-tested arthritis drug, Vioxx, caused more than 20,000 cases of heart attack despite having no harmful impact on the hearts of mice. Such failure of correspondence necessitates the creation of medical breakthroughs devoid of the involvement of animals.

Animal subjects should not be used in scientific research since there are other viable options, which render them unnecessary. The majority of cosmetic companies, for instance, have embarked on other means of assessing the safety of their products devoid of scientific testing on animals. Amorim and Shikanov (2016) assert that scientific testing on animals should be avoided thanks to the development of artificial cellular tissues. Similarly, Eyetex, a synthetic product, has been found to become opaque the moment a product harms it indicating the manner in which a real eye would respond to unsafe substances. Since successful practices of testing products are available devoid of the utilization of live animals, checking possibly toxic substances on them is superfluous.

Conclusion

It is cruel and nonessential for animals to go through testing of any form since it risks their safety. Scientific testing on animals does not consider their welfare, safety, and quality of life. Animal subjects should not be utilized in scientific research because other practical options make them pointless.

References

Amorim, C. A., & Shikanov, A. (2016). The artificial ovary: Current status and future perspectives. Future Oncology, 12(20), 2323-2332. Web.

Get your
100% original paper
on any topic

done in as little as
3 hours
Learn More

Rice, K. J. (2019). The thalidomide tragedy and the United States. Tenor of Our Times, 8(1), 10-15.

Zengin, E. Ç. (2018). An universal struggle: Advocating the animals’ ignored rights. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 121-124. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 1). Scientific Testing on Animals. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/scientific-testing-on-animals/

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 1). Scientific Testing on Animals. https://studycorgi.com/scientific-testing-on-animals/

Work Cited

"Scientific Testing on Animals." StudyCorgi, 1 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/scientific-testing-on-animals/.

1. StudyCorgi. "Scientific Testing on Animals." January 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/scientific-testing-on-animals/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Scientific Testing on Animals." January 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/scientific-testing-on-animals/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2022. "Scientific Testing on Animals." January 1, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/scientific-testing-on-animals/.

References

StudyCorgi. (2022) 'Scientific Testing on Animals'. 1 January.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.