Argumentative Essay

Animal testing is defined as the use of non-human animals in research and development projects. Normally, the purposes are to determine the safety of substances such as foods, cosmetic products or drugs. There has been a long way debate on the argument whether animal testing is a must or not. The argument arises between these two parties; the pro-animal activists and animal experimenters. From the activists’ side, they have come boldly to tell the world that animal testing is a definite inhumanity. Meanwhile, the experimenters have their own valuation on this issue. They believe that the benefits of animal testing do outweigh the drawbacks. So, after our own consideration, we agree with the experimenters’ view. We have been sure that animal testing is necessary. Being rigid with their definition of humanity, the activists claim that animal testing is totally refutable. Animal testing has to be banned because most laboratory animals are treated badly and either infected by diseases or suffer physical damage during the experimentation. (A. Wong, 2008) However, Dr Ian Warren, a visiting expert on medical ethics has gone against Wong’s statement. He states that there is a law that prevent those cruelty attributed to animal testing from happening. For example, in England, they have a very strict regulation related to animal testing. Their Department of Animal Welfare would not grant a licence to the experimenters if it is believed that the laboratory animals will suffer too much. Another claim by the activists is that the research findings from animal testing are unreliable due to the physical differences between animals and humans, and the stressful conditions to which the animals are subjected. (A. Wong, 2008) Nevertheless, the researchers strongly believe that the only way that potential drugs can be proved safe for human usage is via animal testing. In accordance to this statement, Dr Ian Warren claims that the real impact of many chemicals and organisms can