Animal Testing Controversy

When shopping at a store, no one ever thinks when he or she buys makeup, cleaning products, deodorant or lotion, that it has potentially hurt an innocent animal. In fact, millions of animals die every year due to a chemical drug. Those animals harmed never got a chance to live a normal, animal life; instead, they were put into cages and locked up for years at a time. While animal testing can be used to ensure the safety of certain drugs for humans, potentially killing or harming the animal being tested deems this practice wrong because it is immoral to kill or injure an innocent animal.

An animal being subjected to testing is not fair; that animal did nothing wrong to deserve to be treated as an experiment. Like humans, animals are creatures living and breathing on this world too. How is it acceptable that creatures almost equal to us humans are treated like scum? Stated in the article “Controversy of Animal Testing” by Ian Murnaghan, “One key argument against animal testing involves the inability of animals to consent to the tests. Humans... can make an informed decision to consent while animals have tests forced upon them, with no choice. As Murnaghan said, animals do not have the choice to decide whether they’ll be tested on or not, for they are obviously unable to speak. However, given the opportunity for an animal to have a voice, the likelihood that they’d reject the proposal of a test is highly likely. During an animal test, it may involve pain, suffering and discomfort. Although researchers try their best to minimize the pain, they aren't able to completely prevent any from happening. For the reason that an innocent animal is suffering against their free will, animal testing should be eliminated for the testing of drugs and other substances.

All beings respond differently to various kinds of drugs and chemicals applied on them for testing. Since they react in so many different ways, it is very hard to conclude any results from the data they receive. As Murnaghan says in the article “Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons,” “the reaction of a drug in an animal's body is quite different from the reaction in a human. The main criticism here is that some believe animal testing is unreliable. ” Like Murnaghan stated, it is almost pointless to even test animals on certain drugs and chemicals because they all have different responses to everything.

Order custom essay Animal Testing Controversy with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

For instance, morphine, which is a commonly used drug for pain relief, calms humans, whereas for cats, it excites them. Varied reactions from a drug emphasizes that humans and animals are different creatures, therefore, why test on animals expecting results related to how humans will react? That simply does not make sense. While researchers may search for drug and chemical questions through the testing of animals, the results are figured to be invalid due to the fact that our bodies are composed differently, thus deeming animal testing as unnecessary and wrong.

Not only are animals harmed and potentially killed while being tested on, but their living conditions are inhumane and unfair. Arrays of cages are what researchers keep animals in. Small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are typically kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox but more than one animal lives in a box. Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Should these animals be kept in these circumstances their entire lives?

Heartbreakingly, most animals stay in their cages all the time except when they are being used in experiments. What kind of life is that? On one hand, strict laws insure that the cages are warm, clean, and big enough. However, they are still kept in cages; a cage can never be as interesting, stimulating, or open as a natural habitat. On the PETA website, a startling image is locked into the reader’s mind, “Imagine living inside a locked closet without any control over any aspect of your life. You can't choose when and what you eat, how you will spend your time, whether or not you will have a partner and children, or who that partner will be.

You can't even decide when the lights go on and off… This is life for an animal in a laboratory. It is deprivation, isolation, and misery. ” In no way, shape, or form is it fair for an animal to be kept in a cage their entire life. Humans aren’t treated and put into cages for their life p, why should animals? Back to a point made in a previous paragraph, animals are living, breathing creatures on this earth too; they deserve reasonable living conditions while being put into these terrible situations.

Although many people disagree in the act of animal testing, others are set in the fact that it’s beneficial to our society and movement in improving modern science. By testing on animals, it can find drugs and treatments to advance health and medicine for humans. In the article “Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons,” Murnaghan writes, “They see humans are superior to animal life and this belief thus justifies the use of animals in testing. While animal suffering should be minimized, they also cite that it is preferable for an animal to suffer as opposed to a human. Researchers view animals as test subjects and conclude that humans are higher in the circle of life; therefore choosing animals for testing is the best choice for society. Those doing the experiments are not motivated by cruelty towards the animal but by a powerful desire to push the boundaries of medical research and develop therapies for diseases. The fact that hurting animals is benefiting humans is the sole reason researchers and people deem the practice as right. Another reason this practice is believed right is animal testing helps to ensure the safety of drugs and many other substances humans use or are open to regularly.

Drugs can carry substantial dangers with their use but animal testing lets researchers measure the safety of drugs prior to trials on humans. Thus, human lives are saved due to them not being harmed from the tests and the drugs tested. The price paid was to the harm of the animals, but with the gain of quality of life to humans, the world moves on. Even though there are some aspects of animal testing that are right and that benefit humans, a creature on this earth is still being harmed. If animals are alive and breathing just like humans, then they should be treated like them too.

Animals are subjected to spend their whole lives in a lab taking the abuse of medical procedures and operations. It is wrong that animals are the ones who take this abuse, especially, like stated earlier, when they are given no alternative choice or route. If a human would have a choice in this situation, an animal should too because any life has value, and animal testing shames that. Being confined to a miserable life with numerous tests that are commonly painful is not a lifestyle that any living thing should be forced to pursue. An animal has to waste its life, well-being, and health for human benefit.

These conditions are not something that any human would choose to undergo, and animals would not either, which is why animal experimentation is wrong. However, without animal testing, humans would be exposed to things that could cause harmful damage or disease. Still, there are other ways that these products and medicines can be tested other than using innocent animals. In an article in the NY times, companies state that they are taking actions in finding new ways to test, “small companies, like Entelos, supply computer simulation programs for virtual testing.

Such software incorporates hundreds of variables to simulate how humans who suffer from conditions like asthma, obesity or Type 1 or 2 diabetes will react to a new drug. ” By using new forms of testing, animals are used less in the lab for experiments and more in their own environment, living normal, animal lives. Those companies finding new ways to test their products should be commended. Testing products before they are released is the safe action to do, therefore, other ways to test those products is very important in the act in saving animals from being harmed from testing.

Animal testing has been taking place for hundreds of years and it’s no less immoral today than it was then. It leads to lasting damage to animals, and in many cases, death. Animal testing is wrong because they have no say in what happens to them, the bodies of animals and humans are different, therefore testing on an animal to find results for a human is unnecessary, their living conditions are horrid, and lastly, there are now other ways to perform tests for products using technology.

Animal testing is unfair, immoral, and selfish for anybody to do, no matter what the purpose may be. It may be said to save lives; however, it kills more than it saves.

Works Cited

1. "Cruelty to Animals in Laboratories. " Peta. org. N. p. , n. d. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. .
2. Feder, Barnaby J. "Saving the Animals: New Ways to Test Products. " The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Sept. 2007.
3. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. . Murnaghan, Ian. "Controversy of Animal Testing. " Controversy of Animal Testing. N. p. 14
4. Dec. 2010. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. . Murnaghan, Ian. "Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. "
5. Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. N. p. , 1 July 2011.
6. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. . Suzy Woodell October 15, 2012

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer