The Pros And Cons Of Animal Experimentation

Animal experimentation is cruel and leads to the needless suffering and death of millions of animals. Public support for animal testing has been in steady decline since the 1950s. In 1949, the public support percentage was over 90 percent but in 2013 it declined to 57 percent (Ericson). According to Procon.org 95 percent of animals are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act. Also, Procon.org says 94 percent of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. An estimated 26 million animals are used every year for animal experimentation (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing). This is a concern because testing on animals is not necessary. There are alternative solutions that do not involve animals. Animal testing dates
In 1966, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act. This act requires researchers to ensure that pain and distress of animals are minimal. However, this does not ban the infliction of pain on animals. It also does not cover mice, rats, or birds (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing). In 1980, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as PETA, was formed. This is an animal rights organization that focuses on 4 main areas where animals suffer. This includes factory farms, clothing trade, laboratories, and entertainment (About PETA). On November 18, 2015 the US National Institutes of Health announced that its remaining 50 research chimpanzees will be retired (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing). Other parts of the world have taken animal testing into consideration as well. In 1986, Parliament in Britain passed a similar law to the Animal Welfare Act to regulate the use of laboratory animals. Also, in 2003, the European Union moved toward a total ban on cosmetic testing on animals (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing). There are two principles of democracy that are connected to animal testing. Individual Rights is one of the principles of democracy connected to animal testing because an animal has a right to their life and should not be tortured and treated horrifically in experiments.
They are locked alone in cages, burned in painful tests, force fed toxic chemicals, subjected to crippling injuries, infected with viruses, and traumatized in psychological experiments. Monkeys that are locked in cages are tormented with fake snakes, blasted with loud noises, scared by masked humans and poisoned to study the effect of chemical warfare. The department of defense stabs, shoots, and blows up thousands of pigs to gauge the impact of different types weapons (Goodman). There are also alternatives instead of animal testing. A chemosynthetic liver is one of these alternatives. Instead of running the drug through an animal, researchers can run the drug through the chemosynthetic liver and get much more relevant results (Ericson). A second alternative is computer simulations. In computer simulations researchers can make determinations about the safety of chemicals. Another alternative is human cell growth. Researchers can put the product on the human cells and see the reaction. This would give the researchers much better results because human cells are being used (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing). Animals do not understand their rights but neither do young children so why do we test on animals when their values are the same. Although animal testing has benefits, it is unacceptable and morally no different than murder (Christie Ritter