Kelcie Connors

Miss Phibbs

ELA 3

February 4,2019

Should Animals be Used for Scientific and Commercial Testing?

The United States Department of Agriculture reported that in 2016 alone 71,270

animals suffered pain during testings (Animal Testing ProCon.org). Animal testing has

been a controversy, and long debated for years. The ongoing issue has been regulated

by many services and departments. Animal testing is when an animal is forced to

undergo some type of test that may cause pain, suffering, side effects, and even in

some cases death for scientific or commercial purposes. Animals should not be used for

scientific and commercial testings because it is cruel and inhumane, alternative

methods now exist that replace the need for animals, and animals exhibit many

differences from humans and therefore make poor test subjects.

Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Decades of observational and

experimental research have proven that animals experience pain, suffering, side effects,

and have resulted in death during experiments. For example, “they are commonly

subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, physical

restraint, infliction of pain, and decapitation’’(Animal Testing ProCon.org). Furthermore,

researchers and testers use a variety of procedures to obtain the results and outcomes

they are looking for. According to Noah Berlatsky, author of Animal Rights, ‘’they have

conducted experiments including immersing tails in hot water, radiant heat, binder clip

on tails, injected irritants into feet, bladder inflammation, chemicals that cause painful

cystitis in humans, injected acetic acid, abdominal constriction, writhe, and surgery
without analgesics.’’ Although there are many different purposes for these testings most

of the experiments involve various types of suffering or damage to, if not all, most of the

animals. In addition,‘’the Draize eye test used to evaluate irritation involves rabbits

being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for

multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested’’(Animal Testing

ProCon.org). Overall, these are multiple prime examples of animals experiencing brutal

and severe scientific and commercial based testings.

Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animal

usage. Every year in the U.S animal experimentation uses billions of dollars. Using new

technological advancements, we can reduce the cost. Computer models such as virtual

reconstructions can predict more dependable results without ‘’invasive experiments’’ on

animals (Animal Testing ProCon.org). Microfluidic chips are in advanced stages of

development. Artificial human skin can produce more useful results than testing

chemicals on animal skin. Microdosing can be used in real human volunteers, in which

are harmless and less exposed to animals. In Vitro testing produced results can be

more relevant than animal testing because human cells can be used (Animal Testing

ProCon.org). Replacement, reduction, and refinement are also ‘’ influential guiding

principles’’ for use of animals in testings (MacClellan). Replacement includes the priority

of increased alternatives that produce the authentic research data without the usage of

animals. Examples of replacement include computer models, epidemiological data,

tissue cultures, isolated organs, and non sentient animals. MacClellan states,

‘’Reduction is the effort to obtain comparable data using fewer animals analgesics,

veterinary care, improved living quarters, and enrichment. Further development and
increased implementation of alternatives to and refinement of animal testing is still

advancing’’(MacClellan).All in all, with our new advancement in this area of study we

should not have the need for animals, and therefore use our alternatives for a greater

purpose.

Animals are also very different from humans, and thus make poor test subjects.

The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences linking animals and people make for

poor models for human beings. For instance,‘’it is very hard to create an animal model

that even equates closely to what we are trying to achieve in the human,’’ states Paul

Furlong of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (Animal Testing ProCon.org).

Therefore these differences can initiate poor outcomes.The author describes, ‘’Thomas

Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at John Hopkins University argues

opposing animal testing because ‘’we are not 70 kg rats’’(Animal Testing ProCon.org).

Animals should not be our resort to go to testing for because they can result in

unreliable statistics and and predict off based results.

On the other hand, some may argue animal testing has contributed to many life

saving cures and treatments. However, it may be true some medical advancements

stem from scientific testings, but they are most likely flawed. Berlatsky states from

another source, ‘’Medical advancement is attributable to experiments on animals”

(Berlatsky 31). This evaluated claim was in fact proven false and determined not

supported. The tests being conducted were irrelevant to humans and did not contribute

meaningfully to advances. So you can conclude animal test results do not all reliably

predict results in human beings.

results, cruel inhumane situations they are forced into, and the new alternative

advancements. An animal right now could be suffering from stroke for the new makeup

brand you’re wanting, or cologne you’re waiting for. Is the life of 100 mice worth the new

makeup brand you’re waiting for, or the deaths of 100 rabbits costly enough for the

cologne you want for your birthday? So one may ask is billions of dollars a year at

animal’s expense really worth the consequence of deaths, unreliable outcomes, and

inconsistent predicaments?