Animal Research: The Dark Side

Does animal research really help humans? Should animals suffer just to benefit

humans? Do people know the suffering of animals in order to produce medicine and

consumer products? Perhaps, not everyone knows about the process. Many animals

are used for research and educational purposes. According to People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals (PETA), “Each year, more than 100 million animals—including

mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and

birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training,

curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing.” In

other words, many animals died in the process, which became a big problem in society.

In medical research, animals are dissected to study the organ structure and perform

surgical techniques. Also, animals served as models for testing drugs, such as

medicines, which help scientists to ensure that the drug is safe for human consumption.

Although animal research has helped scientists understand diseases and treatment,

animal research is unreliable, and many experiments are needlessly cruel harmful to

animals. Most importantly, experimentation violates animal rights.

Animal research harmed humans because of unreliability. Some scientists would

say that humans and animals are similar to each other: they breathe, eat, and sleep.

However, animals do not get the same diseases as humans do, and they have different

bodies. Scientists developed drugs and tested them on animals, but there is no certainty

that those drugs are applicable to humans. According to the National Institute of Health

(NIH), processing drugs is expensive and a lengthy process. The NIH reported that
“[t]he average length of time from target discovery to approval of a new drug is about 14

years. The failure rate during this process exceeds 95[%], and the cost per successful

drug can be $1 billion or more.” In other words, the failure rate shows that animal

research is often unnecessary. Also, scientists have worked most of their life developing

drugs, but the chances of becoming successful are low. Although successful drugs are

effective in animals, it will not work on humans. As mentioned earlier, animal bodies are

different. Therefore, their bodies help them endure or handle dangerous drugs that

human bodies cannot. Moreover, many resources are wasted in the process. Imagine

the amount of money they spent to develop drugs, and most of the drugs just failed.

Animal research is not only unreliable but also, experiments are harmful.

Most people have no idea how dangerous experiments are to animals because

they do not fully understand the process. For example, scientists are injecting and

rubbing chemicals, such as pesticides, into an animal body to understand how the body

will react when exposed to chemicals as well as the side-effects. As a consequence, the

animal may die from poisoning. Animals are forced to take such chemicals in order for

scientists to test new drugs such as vaccines and medicines to be later used by

humans. According to PETA, “Monkeys in labs are subjected to painful, invasive, and

irrelevant experiments. They are starved and restrained with diseases and pumped full

of chemicals and drugs. Experimenters drill holes and screw objects into their heads.” In

other words, monkeys are painfully exposed to different diseases and lethal chemicals.

Also, PETA mentioned that experimenters are drilling holes into their heads, which is

inhumane. If chemicals are dangerous to humans, why would scientists apply it to

animals? Moreover, toxic chemicals are harmful to the environment. Many animals died
due to the strong effect of chemicals but, what do scientists do after an animal dies?

The chemicals are still on an animal’s body even if it dies, so burning the animal body is

not the best option. For example, writer Rebekah Corbett points out that,

Millions of animal bodies﹣as well as supplies such as bedding, caging,

needle, and syringes﹣are disposed of each year. The routine disposal of

hazardous waste also produces harmful substances and air pollutants.

The most prominent chemically and biologically hazardous waste

produced are animal carcasses and tissues that contain toxic chemicals.

In short, many animals do not survive the animal testing because of the lethal

chemicals. Also, at the same time, the disposing of dead animals endangers the

environment with toxic chemicals and puts the environment in danger. For example,

wastes that are dumped in rivers can lead to water pollution, putting all living organisms

at risk, such as humans who rely on water to survive. Moreover, the animal research

facility itself, which emits smoke from these chemicals contributes to air pollution. Aside

from being unnecessary and unsafe, animal testing violates the animal’s rights.

Using animals for experiments violates animal rights. Animals should be treated

humanely. According to writer Mark Hawthorne, animal rights “is the idea that

nonhuman animals, like human animals, have the right to be treated with respect as

individuals with inherent value. Every animal is someone, not something, and they have

the right to live free from humans inflicting pain and suffering on them.” To put it

differently, animals are born not to be used by humans, using them in their own interest.

Instead, animals are here to live freely as humans do. Humans are obviously not the

only ones who can experience pain, but animals too. Animals avoid decisions that
cause them to suffer or end their life. For example, a dog would not dare to go near the

fire because he knows he will get burnt. Therefore, animals did not choose to be used in

experiments in the first place because they know they will get hurt. In other words, they

were forced. Some scientists would argue that if experimenting with animals violates

animal rights, then eating animals is also a violation. According to philosopher Peter

Singer, “It may be morally justified to continue to eat free-range animals who [had] a

pleasant existence in a social group suited to their behavioral needs, and are then killed

quickly and without pain” (qtd. In Francione). In other words, eating animals that came

from farms is acceptable because animals are being fed and cared for by farmers. Also,

animals can roam freely within the farm, unlike animals that are used in experiments,

where they are kept in cages for an extremely long time.

For the most part, throughout history, scientists made important discoveries with

the help of animal testing. However, many animals suffered or were killed during the

process, and the misleading result of animal research can harm humans. Scientists

need to eliminate the use of animals in experiments because why would scientists still

use animals for research if the failure rate is so low? Also, if this is the only way to test

new drugs, then scientists should use less dangerous chemicals when developing

consumer products as possible. Scientists should consider looking for alternative

methods for animal testing. They should take advantage of modern technologies. For

example, scientists can use computer technology. According to journalists Sonali and

Shashikant, “Computers can help understand the various basic principles of biology. . .

Computer[-]generated simulations are used to predict the various possible biological

and toxic effects of a chemical or potential drug without animal dissection.” In other
words, using computer simulations can prevent animals from being harmed through

testing. Animal testing should be left to history because it’s often unnecessary and

cruel.

Introduction (1, 5)

Conclusion (5, 3)

Title (1)

Works Cited
“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics.” PETA, 5 Oct. 2020,

www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experiment

ation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/.

Corbett, Rebekah. “Animal Research: An Environmental Perspective.” Faunalytics, 16

Sept. 2019, faunalytics.org/animal-research-an-environmental-perspective/.

“Current Animal Experiments: Features.” PETA, 21 July 2020,

www.peta.org/features/current-animal-experiments/.

Doke, Sonali K., and Shashikant C. Dhawale. “Alternatives to Animal Testing: A

Review.” Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, Elsevier, 18 Nov. 2013,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096.

Kretzer, Michelle. “This Ad Spells It Out: Animal Tests Are Going Nowhere.” PETA, 18

July

2019,www.peta.org/blog/experiments-on-animals-fail-90-of-the-time-why-are-they

-still-done/.

L., Gary. “ Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance.”

Animal Law Legal Center, 1 Jan. 1997,

www.animallaw.info/article/animal-rights-theory-and-utilitarianism-relative-normati

ve-guidance.

Hawthorne, Mark. “What Is Animal Rights?” Animal Rights National Conference, 15 Jan.

2019, arconference.org/what-is-animal-rights