You are on page 1of 3

Rose Damian

Persuasive Essay

Should animals be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? There is an estimated 26

million are used every year in the United States to develop medical treatments, determine the

toxicity of medications, check the safety of products meant for human use , etc. Proponents of

animal testing say that it has allowed the development of numerous life-saving treatments for

both humans and animals , that there is no other alternative method for researching a complete

living organism . What people must understand is that animal testing is cruel and inhumane to

experiment on animals. Also, people must realize that animals are different than human beings ,

therefore, yielding irrelevant results. Finally, alternative methods available to researchers can

replace animal testing. Animals shouldn’t be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing.

Animal Testing is cruel and inhumane. "Animal Testing of Chemicals, Humane Society

International" ​:​http://www.hsi.org Countries such as Europe, China and elsewhere have

implemented laws that are requiring companies to produce large quantities of test data , this can

cause more suffering and death for tens of millions of animals. The is an estimated 100,000

chemicals which are marketed globally , with more new chemicals being introduced each year.

The amount of chemicals in the world are needed to be safe for us humans but is costing the lives

of many innocent animals. This supports one of the consequences of animal testing because the

information shows how much suffering and death is causing. The products that are constantly

being bought by people such as makeup may not necessarily inform the person that it is
animal-tested. Some makeup brands today label their products as “cruelty-free” meaning they are

not tested on animals.

What makes animals poor models for human beings are the anatomic , metabolic, and

cellular differences. Life Science Technologies : Animal-free Toxicology: Sometimes, in Vitro is

Better” by Jeffrey M. Perkel , http://www.sciencemag.org A high throughput cell culture- based

approach are one of the ways animals aren’t necessarily needed to be used for toxicity testing.

Industry, too, is moving away from animal testing. Animals are different the humans which is

why they are poor test subjects, their bodies can react differently than a human’s since we can’t

be test subjects. There are other ways chemicals can be tested not requiring animals such as The

ToxInsight Endocrine Profiler Panel (EPP) . “ We are not 70kg rats.” But time , cost, and

practicality also loom large.” “ Proctor & Gamble (P&G) , for instance, has been developing

animal-free alternatives to toxicology testing for nearly 30 years ...sustainability.”

The need for animals can now be replaced due to alternative methods. Animals used in

labs now don’t have to be necessarily used when there are more alternative methods that are

more reliable. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), "Vioxx Tragedy

Spotlights Failure of Animal Research," ​pcrm.org, ​Mar. 2005 . Non-animals tests are more

reliable , one example would be the amount of deaths caused by Vioxx. The reactions of an

animal can be really different from a human’s which is why not all studies where animals have

been tested on should be reliable. Animal tests are not necessarily safe.Drug manufacturers have
very little regarding to human safety. “In animal tests , Vioxx looked safe. But according to the

Food and Drug administration , Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden

cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003.” “Non-animal tests may well be better than animal tests ,

but if regulators won’t accept them, manufacturers see no point in using them.”

Yes, animal testings have contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments but

cruelty is involved with it as well. For example, the polio vaccine, tested on animals , reduced

the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases in 1988 to 27 cases in 2016 (​who.int​,

Apr. 2013​)​. Animals have been used repeatedly throughout the history of biomedical research.

Early Greek physician-scientists, such as Aristotle, (384-322 BC) and Erasistratus, (304 – 258

BC), performed experiments on living animals. Since alternative methods weren’t available back

then, the way to know if a medicine, chemical, etc. was safe , had to involve animal testing.

In conclusion three reasons to not use animals for Scientific or Commercial Testing are

that animal testing is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals. Also, people must realize

that animals are different than human beings , therefore, yielding irrelevant results. Finally,

alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing. Animals shouldn’t be

used for Scientific or Commercial Testing.