ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Animal Testing Arguments - A case against animal experimentation

Updated on October 3, 2015

Testing on animals is something that has almost become a hallmark of the scientific research world, new drugs and products thought to be unsafe for human usage is tested first on poor animals so that we humans can one day use the drug safely. But is testing drugs on animals ethically correct? What is animal testing basically? Which types of animals are used in testing? Why it is morally wrong for us as a society to actively involve ourselves in animal testing? These answers will be answered in this article.

People in favor of animal testing would argue that throughout the history of man, particularly in the period of the twentieth century, every great big medical breakthrough that has happened has solely been down to testing it first on animals. It is however stated by many accomplished scientists, particularly Edward O Meara who argues that testing on animal is not something solely responsible for medical breakthroughs. He argues that using animals as test subjects not only physically deforms their bone structure but the procedures taken by scientists during this test are so incredibly painful to animals that the final results are inconclusive.

The basic reason that humans have for years chosen to turn the other cheek when it comes to animal testing is because people have an inherent feeling of inferiority when it comes to animals. Instead of being looked upon as living, breathing creatures they are mainly looked upon as robots who are obliged to take every kind of brutality man performs on them for the better of the tormenter himself. Many animals are tested for experiments, these mostly include invertebrates, dominated by mice and rats which add up to about twenty million. Even cats and dogs are not spared in animal testing, they are mainly used for neurological purposes, 25,500 cats were used for testing in the year 2000 in USA alone.

The extent to which animals suffer under testing can be highlighted by the fact that about fifty percent of the animals used in cosmetic testing die a mere three weeks after the tests. Botox which has now become very common in this day and age poses a great threat to mice, according to research it is widely said that at least half of the mice used in its testing have to die before Botox is deemed safe for humans to use. Considering the fact that 84,000 plus mice are used for testing in the USA, a great many mice have to die in order for someone in the world to get a treatment which if not performed would in no way, shape or form harm their life. Although many people have taken steps towards stopping animal testing and have fought for the rights of these poor animals that go through such savage testing, these laws do not protect rodents or birds. This means that any lab in any part of the world can use rodents, birds or even reptiles for that matter in animal testing and not be concerned with meeting any pain relief requirement. This was highlighted when it was reported that a baby mice had to endure painful shock, torture and starvation for testing purposes, the ligaments of this mice were severely damaged and not treated for an upward of 16 weeks.

Animals like ourselves have souls, they have a body and their needs need to be fulfilled by us. Keeping animals in cages for extended periods of time is cruel on them; not giving them time to move around is unjust whatever way you look at it. These feeling are compounded by the fact that only a meager 8% of these tests are the same on animals as they are on humans, this means that an excess of a thousand animals would have to die in order to make a product which has an 8% percent chance of success, this is in whatever way you look at it ridiculous. It is also worth mentioning the economical strength that is needed for animal testing, it is almost impossible to measure the amount of animals that are tested every year but many of the studies show that this number adds up to 115 million. So, to put this into context 115 million animals are used for animal testing every year worldwide, never mind the success of the drug, we can calculate that about 6 million dollars are needed per animal. The amount of money which is injected into animal testing can not only be used for something that can have a much bigger and better impact, but to think that governments around the world are ready to invest so much money for something so barbaric is quite frankly sad and irresponsible on their part.

We are no longer living in the century where if you had to contact your family member living in a foreign land you were resigned to travelling for days just to talk to them. Technology and especially science have prospered leaps and bounds since animal testing was not a luxury but a necessity. Agreed that animal testing has provided us with many results that without it would have been virtually impossible, but now the times have changed. Science has succeeded in moving faster then research protocols so now there is absolutely no need for animal testing. Years of research has enabled us to now know the chemical properties of most substances and powerful computers are now adept at providing us with accurate predictions of what is likely to happen, this should without a doubt make the need for animal testing a thing of the past as now we know the results of chemical interactions.

If society can actively stand up against cock, bull and dog fighting then standing up for an issue which is as important should not be too much to ask for. Laws that are in place for animal cruelty have been manipulated over the years and now they simply do not prevent people from hurting animals.

Should animal testing be allowed?

See results


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      nicole 3 years ago

      it should not be allowed I feel so bad for the animals who have died because of people

    • Levertis Steele profile image

      Levertis Steele 5 years ago from Southern Clime

      One more: Do we save mice from cats, antelope from lions? Animals are part of a food chain. They kill each other. A lion clamps the antelope's throat cutting off its breath until it's dead. That's cruel! A hunter aims for the heart and take the poor soul quickly, I hope. A python or any other constrictor has no mercy on humans or animals. Man has to fight animals to survive. A law in my state protects the black bear from being shot. If one comes near my house, I will be "drying his skin" the same day. I will be the one in the news in handcuffs. To justify my Church's Chicken eating, I am part of the food chain.

      Seriously, I have concluded that some animal killing, not inhumane, is necessary. Animals prey on each other. Some would prey on us if we were not careful. I really think we need to know just where to draw the line that falls between necessary and unnecessary or inhumane.

    • Levertis Steele profile image

      Levertis Steele 5 years ago from Southern Clime

      Just to add another thought, caging animals for pets is probably inhumane. We have a sweet, loving cockatiel. He was probably hatched in captivity. I doubt if reptiles, seals, tigers, bears, elephants, rhinos, whales, dolphins, and many other animals want to live in captivity. They would love the freedom of the jungle, rivers, and swamps. They are kept in zoos and marinas for human pleasure. In order to right unfairness to animals, a world of changes would have to take place. Much money is involved, so, it won't happen in this century. Human beings are too weak and selfish to make a quick difference. And again, maybe some of this is not so wrong. For Christians: Jesus ate fish, and He had to kill to cook. I really do not know where to stop with this. I have no answers, but I am concerned.

    • Levertis Steele profile image

      Levertis Steele 5 years ago from Southern Clime


      I agree with your points, but I find myself "between a rock and a hard place" when weighing both sides of the argument.

      You asked, "Why it is morally wrong for us as a society to actively involve ourselves in animal testing?" We humans are supposed to respect and care for nature and its animal families. For Christians, animal sacrifices were very common B.C. for atonement of sins.

      When I read about the history of human testing, including the ones done just a few decades ago, I shuddered and became speechless. Some were unsanitary and without mercy when it came to people who did not have rights or were at a disadvantage like retardation, slavery, imprisonment, or confined to a mental institution, etc. I suppose animal testing is supposed to be an improvement over human testing. Some humans still volunteer to participate in certain studies and testings. (Presently, I am participating in a heart study that excludes risky undertakings, I hope.)

      When I was preparing for my first surgery, all kinds of thoughts ran through my mind: Is the doctor very experienced and reputable? When I am "under," will my surgeon allow an intern to practice on me? Will the medical team do things that I would not approve of, like unauthorized procedures--samplings, testing, etc. I would not want a doctor to operate on me if he/she has not prepared well and had many successful similar surgeries. I prefer a seasoned, topnotch surgeon who is in great demand. I have always been against human and animal testing, but how are surgeons, specialists in cancer surgery and treatment, supposed to do a good job if they have not practiced on LIVE bodies of animals or human beings or both? I would hate to know that I am the first live body that my surgeon is preparing to knife if he hasn’t had some live training. Do I approve of hurting animals? No. Do I want a doctor to perform an invasive procedure without similar practice, and lots of it? No! I just can't solve this. I am still walled in.

      If animals must be used, the studies should not be for things that are not vital to saving lives. Cosmetic testing is inhuman, in my opinion. Using them for saving human lives is another story. I am stumped. I suppose those individuals who have stood over the drained bodies of their children or mom while they were dying of cancer with no cure would be stumped too, maybe.

      Chickens, cows, fish, hogs, sheep, and many other animals die every day to end up on someone’s table. I know many meat eaters who are against animal testing. Sport hunting and fishing, not to eat, but to win a contest or just enjoy the kill . . . . Well, if we are gong to stop animal testing, cruelty, or killing, we all need to become vegans, or at least vegetarians. I have tried, but that Church’s Chicken is a seductive devil.

      Sorry I wrote so much. You writers have such interesting subjects! Voting up and clicking other buttons. Thanks for sharing.