Arguments Against Animal Testing

Barbara Franco
October 8 2013
Professor Craig
English 115

Over 100 million animals are subject to being burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in laboratories throughout the U.S. What is even more disheartening is that up to 90 percent of animals that are used in laboratories throughout the United States are not inclusive in the official statistics of animal testing (dosomething.org, 2013). Although animal testing does have social and economical benefits, animal testing should not be conducted due to the following reasons: It is very expensive, it holds to be invalid due to contrastive anatomies and environments animals and humans physically bear, and acts of animal testing are inappropriate as well as inhumane. Conducting animal tests
While there may be similarities found between certain species of animals and humans, the similarities are just that: they are similar but they are not the same. In biology, science proves that the specimen containing the closest physical attributes of the human anatomy is a cat. Although cats are biologically similar to the human anatomy, primates are the most similar to humans in terms of behavior, conduct, and some physical attributes – such as the opposable thumb. Reviewing these simple scientific facts reveal that if animals are tested for human purposes, more than one specimen of animal needs to be tested in order to achieve a solution. Why? Animals are not the same as humans. Not only is the biology of animals contrastive to humans but also the conditions and environments that humans live in vice the environments and conditions animals are captive to for testing. Everyday, we humans dwell within our natural habitats; however, animals that are subject to testing do not. Ian Murnaghan, author of the article “Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons”, asserts, “…because animals are in an unnatural environment, they will be under stress. Therefore, they won’t react to the drug in the same way compared to their potential reaction in a natural environment. This argument further weakens the validity of animal experimentation.” The reaction of a drug in an
After 31 pairs of lizards had fought and undergone a three-day recovery period, the experimenters killed them all. Some lizards were immediately decapitated, others were “restrained” (intentionally stressed out). This very experiment was considered necessary in order to study the effects of stress on lizards of differential social status and the advancement of modern medicine.
Conducting animal testing for animals’ sexual pleasure is inappropriate and inhumane. How does animal experimentation for the animals’ sexual pleasure benefit humans? How does animal experimentation for the animals’ sexual pleasure help find a medicinal solution for human health? In what way does animal experimentation for an animal’ sexual pleasure bolster medicinal advancement? The answer is that it doesn’t. Animal testing and experimentation – such as the few listed above – does not contribute to human health. Animals testing and experimentation, like the ones formerly mentioned, are inappropriate, inhumane, and frankly incongruous. Such animal testing and experimentation interjects with the specimen’s natural habitats and behaviors and indeed become unreliable because scientists and experimenters are orchestrating their environments, and therefore orchestrating their