Introduction
Animal testing is among high controversial and ethical issues of the modern world, where both commercial and scientific organizations are increasingly generating products, which require extensive testing on model organisms. The concern is manifested in the fact that animals are sentient beings as well, which poses a dilemma in regards to using their suffering for the benefit of humanity. One might argue that a person’s wellbeing should not be based on the deprivation of another species. However, by looking at the given problem at a broader scope, it is evident that no improvement and maintenance of human prosperity can be made without animal harm. Therefore, animal testing should be used for both commercial and scientific purposes as long as the outcome results in a direct benefit for humankind.
Main body
The very first argument is based on the mere logical observation and general extension of the scope of the given subject. It is important to note that any person’s wellbeing and health are directly dependent on the use of animals, which might lead to their suffering. For example, meat is a major component of a human diet, which is an invaluable source of protein and fats. Although some parties, such as vegan, might go further by claiming that their approach is correct, it raises a different question on dietary concerns of a no-meat diet. Therefore, animal suffering is a requirement for a person’s health and happiness, which means the same logic applies to testing. A diseased person might require proper medication, which can only be derived from animal testing, and other means would result in harm. In other words, banning animal testing would directly and explicitly mean that its advocates are against human happiness and health.
The second point is more detached from the moral aspects of the matter but rather focused on technicalities. It is stated that in vitro experiments have a wide range of weaknesses and disadvantages in comparison to in vivo testing (Soodabeh et al. 223). It is essential to consider the notion of utilizing better methodologies in order to ensure the quality and benefit of a product. For example, assuming that certain medication can be developed both in vitro and in vivo, but the cost and safety characteristics would drastically differ. The version, which underwent an animal testing procedure, would be much more reliable compared to in vitro one. The main reason is the fact that organisms are complex systems, which cannot be easily and accurately replicated in the lab without using animals. Similarly, the use of animals, which are evolutionarily closer to humans, leads to more precise and safer findings. For instance, it is evident that a medication tested on chimpanzees is more reliable than bacteria-based processes.
However, one of the most valid arguments against animal testing is the fact that there are major differences between species. For example, a mouse-tested drug will not guarantee safety and effectiveness in a person, which is true to a certain extent. It is necessary to consider the alternatives to the given statement, which is either less reliable in vitro testing or more controversial and even inhumane human testing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, animal testing should be allowed and actively practiced as a means to ensure the safety and usefulness of a product. It is applied to both scientific and commercial purposes, but the outcome should yield some form of benefit for people. If such a practice does not justify the animal suffering, where no real advantage is provided, then it should be prohibited due to the immorality of animal testing.
Work Cited
Soodabeh, Saeidnia, et al. “From in vitro Experiments to in vivo and Clinical Studies; Pros and Cons.” Current Drug Discovery Technologies, vol. 12, no. 4, 2015, pp. 218-224.