Animal Testing Human Body
“Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing” (PETA.org). Animal testing has been used since as early as Aristotle’s time. Many well-known philosophers back then used animals to experiment on in order to better understand anatomy, physiology, pathology, and pharmacology. Animal testing has been a highly debated controversial topic since the 17th century. Those who are advocates for animal testing, argue that the initial testing on animals will ensure the safety of human consumers, once the tested
…show more content…
Animals have been used in research since as early as Aristotle’s time. Since a majority of information on toxicology is based on animal testing, it is difficult for scientists to find complete replacements that can adequately represent the human body and ensure the safety of those who use the products being tested. Those in favor of animal testing, argue that experiments on animals are necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Geoff Watts, a freelance science and medical writer and broadcaster, states, “Most non-animal methods have been developed within the scientific community and for scientific reasons, he adds. Many are complementary to existing animal tests rather than direct replacements. They may reduce rather than eliminate the need for animal procedures” (Watts 2). Watts, along with many other scientists conclude that although animal testing has yet to be eliminated, it can most definitely be reduced. As for the argument for those who oppose animal testing, they feel that animal testing is unethical and that animals should be treated equally. It has been a widely known principle that all living things should be treated equally. Since animal testing involves inflicting pain on another living thing, there is no justification to harming animals based on an ethical standpoint. Peter Singer, a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne,
Animals have been used in research since as early as Aristotle’s time. Since a majority of information on toxicology is based on animal testing, it is difficult for scientists to find complete replacements that can adequately represent the human body and ensure the safety of those who use the products being tested. Those in favor of animal testing, argue that experiments on animals are necessary to advance medical and biological knowledge. Geoff Watts, a freelance science and medical writer and broadcaster, states, “Most non-animal methods have been developed within the scientific community and for scientific reasons, he adds. Many are complementary to existing animal tests rather than direct replacements. They may reduce rather than eliminate the need for animal procedures” (Watts 2). Watts, along with many other scientists conclude that although animal testing has yet to be eliminated, it can most definitely be reduced. As for the argument for those who oppose animal testing, they feel that animal testing is unethical and that animals should be treated equally. It has been a widely known principle that all living things should be treated equally. Since animal testing involves inflicting pain on another living thing, there is no justification to harming animals based on an ethical standpoint. Peter Singer, a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne,