Yes, despite all the negative aspects, I am pro animal testing. These tests are not performed for no reason; they are performed in order to find drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine, and treat illnesses for both humans and animals. By testing animals, scientists have saved countless lives. In fact, research states that it is a fact that the white rat has saved more lives than the calling of 911. Had it not been for animal testing, terminal diseases like tuberculosis and cholera would still be around, and the medical treatments that we use today wouldn't exist, and the development of future breakthroughs would be limited.
Moreover, animals are convenient test subjects since some species have close DNA structures with human beings. Also, I think animals should be used for testing because animals are innumerable, so scientists can perform a large amount of experiments that could have been performed on people, but at a relatively cheaper price, and without endangering any human. However, these tests should be limited to animals that are in abundance, like rats, guinea pigs, cats, and dogs. Endangered animals should not be subject options, so as to not contribute to their extinction.
One important factor to consider is the issue on morality. I do agree that sometimes, animal testing can be cruel. But wouldn't testing new drugs on people be even more cruel? Wouldn't it be more cruel for them to die of the tests because there isn't enough information about a drug? Also, are not millions of animals killed yearly for food and other merchandise? In my opinion, medical research is a more justifiable death than feeding stomachs or sustaining the fashion industry. With the issue of cruelty at hand, it should be known that scientists care about the welfare of the animals being tested on. The testing is done under strict supervision and the law protects the animals from cruelty and mistreatment, so animal testing doesn't really entail animal cruelty.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document