Against Animal Testing
Humans guarantee each other many rights including happiness, dignity, health care, employment, voting, and free speech. These rights come in to question when taking away non-basic interests, such as comfort or quality of life, or losing interests that lower a quality of life. We then create a system in which we must choose which beings deserve and do not deserve certain treatments to meet our own desires. This is why some companies and organizations have begun to create new alternatives to testing on animals. People argue against or for animal testing on a basis of morality, validity and necessity which can all come from very different perspectives. However, animals are living organisms too, that feels pain and should have rights protecting them from such inhumane testing of products.
Animal testing has been used since the 1800’s. Louis Pasteur used chickens to develop his small pox vaccine which saved countless lives, but with the times changing and technology ever advancing there is little need to continue to test on animals. (Murnaghan) Product testing accounts for ten percent of all animal use for scientific purposes, which may seem like a small percentage, but actually translates to millions of animals being killed every year in order to produce a new type of mascara or moisturizer. Animal testing like this is unnecessary because of, as many scientists have said; there are too few replacement techniques to use in place of animal tests. However this is false, there are many alternative ways to test, like one replacement alternative that is testing on a synthetic skin called Corrositex. It can be used to see if a chemical substance will burn or corrode skin. Another form is, Computer modeling, specifically for educational purposes such as dissecting a frog in a biology laboratory. Computers also help scientists to gather more information from one test subject than before, therefore needing to harm fewer animals. There are many...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document