Animal Testing Should Not Be Banned Essay

Amy Smith Professor Erickson WR 122 10/31/2012 Animal Testing Should Not Be Banned From when you are a baby to when you are an adult animal testing is used in your everyday products. From the Pampers you put on as a baby and the Johnson and Johnson you are washed with. To when you are older, the Febreeze, Sunsilk, and Gillette you use (Companies That do Test on Animals). Animal testing surrounds you in every act of life. “The guess is around 100 million animals are used worldwide in animal testing” (Animal Rights). Animal testing is rooted from natural curiosity.

How the insides of a living organism operate and look is an interesting idea. Because of the fact that dissection of humans was i8llegal by the Roman church, animals were the second best options for knowledge of living organisms (Animal Testing). The first experiments involving live animals were conducted in the third century BC (Animal Testing). Since then a large number of tests on animals have been conducted worldwide. The primary goal of researchers carrying out experiments on animals has always been to understand diseases and their treatment.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In many countries throughout the world testing drugs on animals is illegal. In fact, medications and other substances like household chemicals will not reach the market unless they are tested and proved to be safe for consumers (ILAR). With there not being any alternatives, it being essential to medical research and animals are safe from harm; animal testing should never be banned. There have been remarkable achievements in cell biology during the past decade; however, these advancements are not enough to replace animals in scientific research.

It is an open question whether data obtained from tests involving alternative techniques such as computer simulation can be valid. While it is true that such methods as computer models or growing cells or tissue from human cells can help, total rejection of animal experimentation is currently next to impossible. There is nothing can “replace complete biological system like animals” (Animal Testing). Scientists point out that computer models are not as physiologically complex as animals, and they cannot show interaction between cells, tissues, etc.

Therefore, they can be used only as adjuncts to tests with animals (Animal Testing). The use of computer models as well as culture tissues will be inadequate in the research of transplantation techniques and drugs for AODS. Such challenges as development of medications for cancer, evolution of methods to relieve depression, examination of mechanical devices as replacements for physiological organs can be addressed only by animal experimentation (Animal Testing). This leads us to believe that animal testing must never be abolished. There is a long list of illnesses which can be cured today due to animal experimentation.

For example, diabetes, appendicitis, diphtheria are successfully treated nowadays as a result of experiments involving animals (Animal Rights). Antibiotics, which treat bacterial infections, drugs to reduce depression and treat cancer, insulin open-heart surgery, and medications, which reduce cholesterol in blood, have evolved from animal experimentation. A number of medical advances achieved through testing on animals can be added to this list. For instance, the development of medications against AIDS depends on animal experimentation.

Transplantation procedures for people with failed kidney or heart owe its evolution to animal research. But for animal experimentation thousands of people worldwide would continue to suffer from poliomyelitis. A vaccine for the aforesaid illness was developed due to animal research. Benefits of vaccine are impressive; the number of cases of the disease declined from 58,000 in 1952 to 4 in 2009 (Animal Testing). The use of animals in biomedical experiments is reported to have contributed to an increase in average life expectancy of approximately 25 years since 1900 in the United States (Animal Testing).

These prove that animal experimentation has helped to solve a wide range of medical challenges and has increased knowledge about treatment of various diseases that used to be considered incurable, thus, giving us another reason to not ban animal testing. Some people claim that animals employed for experiments are frequently abused. Under the law, scientists are supposed to ensure that animals feel comfortable living in laboratories. Federal law requires scientists to use anesthesia or tranquilizers so that animals do not suffer. Relief from pain is not used only in those cases when it might influence the results of the experiment.

For example, pain-relieving medications are not used when the purpose of the experiment t is to explore treatment of pain. Scientists provide a good care to research animals since they weren’t to be sure that the statistical data provided by the Department of Agriculture, only a small percentage of research animals experience pain. For instance, in 2010 6% of animals were subjected to painful procedures and were not given anesthesia (ILAR). In other words, scientists try to eliminate pain that research animals have to suffer in laboratories.

Rights of animals are protected, however people are of primary importance, and abolishing animal experimentation should not happen. To sum up, the use of animals in research for scientific and medical purposes is a necessity. It should be permitted for a number of reasons. Currently there are no alternatives to animal testing; experiments performed on computer models and culture tissues or cells can be used only as supplements to animal experimentation. It is known to have helped to address a number of medical challenges, and it remains important element of medical research nowadays.

Breakthrough in treatment of such diseases as cancer, heart attacks, AIDS are unlikely to happen if animal testing is banned. The animals do not suffer pain, so it should be permitted, and its benefits to people are huge. Works Cited “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research. ” Journal of the American Medical Association. 17 November 2010: 2716-2890. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, Science, Medicine, and Animals. National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004. Watson, Stephanie. Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2009.