'Is there really any GAIN from causing Animals PAIN?’ A brief look at the cons of animal testing in the 21st century
Charles Darwin, a renowned scientist, wrote to the Oxford zoologist Ray Lankester in 1871 : “You ask about my opinion on vivisection (animal testing). I quite agree…it is a subject that makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it else I shall not sleep to-night".So you’d think, that nearly 150 years after Darwin’s words there would be some change in opinion. You’d think that when a scientist’s idol shows absolute disgust for animal testing they’d stop, especially as there are more effective and money-saving methods today. Experimenting on animals is cruel and morally wrong. Even as I type, animals are being crammed into cages in the name of medical ‘research’. Animals are very different from humans, their anatomical structures are also different, so why test on animals when it the drugs they are being tested with are meant for HUMANS? What kind of sick logic is this?
There are many alternatives for animal testing now, that are also a lot cheaper, so there is no excuse to keep continuing this horrific act. An example of an alternative is artificial human skin made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes that can produce more useful and accurate results than testing chemicals on animal skin. Yet, these blood-thirsty scientists today simply refuse to acknowledge this! Ask yourself, has there been a medical breakthrough with the use of animal testing of late? Think back to these past 5 years? Can’t think of anything? Thought so. While scientist are too busy looking for the pot of gold under the rainbow, more than six and a half million animals are dying per year! And that’s only in Australia! Can you imagine what the total number is in the world combined?! Money is also a major factor. Instead of funding animal testing the government should fund the alternatives of animal testing and save money! Animal testing is expensive because merely conducting one test can cost up to $75,000, and that’s without the cost of the animals used. Experiments can use up to 100 animals!! Clearly, animal experimentation has produced very little results and should stop as there are more effective and less expensive alternatives today.
Animal testing is cruel and immoral. Do we not sometimes gaze lovingly at our pets, because they can be better company than anyone? Do we not believe that they can be our best of friends? Now imagine those very lovable pets crushed into a dark and petrifying cage with so many other animals, cowering in fear, waiting for their inevitable deaths. Branded with a barcode instead of a name. And do you know what happens to them even while they're in the labs? Their bones get crushed in a very small cage, they are either force fed or deprived of food altogether, their once soft fur is blackened with toxic chemicals. Scientists apply skin and eye irritants; and the eyes of animals are held open by clips so that they can’t blink away the chemicals. Most suffer a slow agonizing death. Many procedures in animal experiments would result in the most serious animal cruelty convictions were they conducted outside the closed doors of laboratories. As the famous British Philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, states: “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"” Animal testing should be ceased as it causes animals suffering beyond any pain imaginable and so therefore is unethical and cruel.
Humans have a dissimilar anatomy and physiology compared to that of animals, so animal experimentation is inaccurate and unnecessary. Animals may react to chemicals differently to that of humans, therefore finding a cure for a disease in animals doesn’t mean it will be a cure for humans. It’s laughable that scientists HAVE found the cure to cancer; in mice! Yet not in humans! Also chemicals that are harmful to some species of animals, are in fact very valuable to us. For example, aspirin is harmful for animals but has proved to be so valuable for humans. When testing on animals, there is only a 5-25% chance that the cure created will work on both humans and animals. Let’s go back in time to when Alexandra Fleming, yet another legendary scientist, just discovered penicillin. Fleming first tested penicillin on rabbits. All the rabbits died. Discouraged he abandoned the research until Oxford graduate Florey brought the research back to life. When Fleming came across a critically-ill patient who was near death, he took a gamble and injected penicillin while a very obstinate Florey tested penicillin on a number of cats. The patient lived, and the cats died. This only goes to show that in facts animals are not needed in experiments and that the experiments that used animals are very inaccurate.
Many who are for animal testing say that animals do not have rights, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. Just because animals do not have a sense of judgment, just because they don’t have a superior cognitive ability, just because they don’t have a voice; doesn’t justify the pain and agony animals go through during experiments…and for what? To prove whether a type of cure works on them with a 5-25% success rate? And what’s to say that the cure will actually work on us? Animal testing is unreasonable and just purely awful.
One can only imagine the unjust ways animals are being treated today when there are alternatives now. One can only imagine why these cold-blooded scientists won’t stop exploiting these poor pristine creatures. One can only imagine the cruelty and immorality. As Milan Kundera, a well-known writer says: “Humanity's true moral test, its fundamental test…consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.”