Every year, the United States uses approximately 26 million animals for testing. Animals are used to test the safety of new medications designed for human use. Scientists have used animals to test their products as far back as 500 BC. Supporters of animal testing have many arguments of why they believe it is justified. I disagree with all of these arguments. I do not think there is any possible way to justify it. Medical animal testing is morally wrong.
Humans make decisions about what they consider is “right” based on their internal morals and external ethics. Morals are internal sets of guidelines that we have set for ourselves to determine what is right or wrong. They show how an individual thinks things should go, according to his or her perspective based on these guidelines. We set these internal guidelines because of our beliefs of what is right or wrong. If we do not follow these morals, we will feel uncomfortable and guilty. Some people may choose to base their morals on ethics. Ethics are rules of conduct that we follow in respect to our culture. They define how things are according to the rules. Ethics are external; they are based on our surrounding culture and social system. We follow ethics because society says it is right. If we do not follow these ethics, we will be faced with disapproval of our peers. Morals and ethics have two different definitions, but both determine what is right and what is wrong. An ethical person could have no morals. On the other hand, a person could violate ethics by following their morals. Both morals and ethics set guidelines of what is right and wrong. Animal testing violates both morals and ethics.
Scientists who support animal testing try to justify it by making several different arguments, with all of which I disagree. Some scientists argue that every medical advance is attributable to animal testing. Others argue that many experiments do not cause the animals any harm, so they are justified. Another popular argument from pro-animal testing scientists is that if we didn’t use animals for experiments, we would have to test new drugs on humans. Scientists also have the idea that animals help fight and work to find a cure for cancer.
Many scientists who use animals for testing argue that experimenting on animals is responsible for every major medical advance. Obviously, this is far from true. This claim has no evidential support. Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply of out curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances. (PETA. par 3) This statement, made by the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) organization, shows that the previous claim from animal testing supporters is false. I agree with this statement. Although some medical advances have been made with the assistance of animal testing, there are very few. For instance, scientists claim that animal testing is responsible for advances in the struggle to find a cure for Parkinson’s Disease. Some say that testing on animals is the only way to find a cure. This statement is, in fact, wrong. Scientists could easily use laboratory-produced stem cells rather than animals for experimentation. They would get the same, or possibly better, results. Out of those few advances, they were only minorly aided by animal testing, rather than it being the main source. I also agree that the only reason why animals are used for testing is out of curiosity. Curiosity is often the root cause of any type of experimentation. Curiosity alone is absolutely not an ethical...