Arguments Against Animal Testing Essay

Animal testing has become a barbaric form of testing in today’s world. It has been a debated topic for decades. Both sides have presented both strong and weak arguments alike. Those who would argue against animal testing have taken a stand due to the way it affects animals. Even in the best circumstances, the animals could easily be considered abused. Those in favor of animal testing, a quickly waning population, don’t seem to deny the abuse that exists. Rather, they argue that the pain is justified. To be clear, this article isn’t an argument of whether or not they are abused but if it is still justified.
Forty years ago the argument against animal testing would have been rather weak. This is mostly due to the fact that other methods of research hadn’t come far enough for it to act as a reasonable substitute. One argument they did have even forty years ago is that research has shown the ineffectiveness of testing human intended products on animals. The newest and strongest argument against experimenting on animals is best stated by Neal Barnard in the article “Animal Testing?” It lists many other methods of testing such as
The scientific community needed it thirty years ago. Thirty years ago Science didn’t have the countless new methods of testing and experimenting. If there is such a lack of logical reason as to why animals are still tested on, then that begs the question “why is it still around?"
Animal testing has its pros and cons but ultimately is unnecessary now. It seems that the only reason it still exists in such popularity is the immoral influence of large corporations. Experiment methods such as selective formulation, human cultures, the physiological chip, cellular tests, and microdosing have made animal testing, a once necessary evil, obsolete. For this, it seems experimenting on animals should at least be limited. Maybe one day it will be completely