Animal Testing Should be Banned

AnimalTesting Should be Banned

Everyyear, creatures are tortured and killed for the food we buy in thesupermarket, for the shampoo we use, the cleaner used in homes, themakeup many people are wearing and for medication individuals takewhen sick. Also, there are many animals that are used for many testsin laboratories that subject them to immense suffering and horribleprocesses (ProCon 1). This encompasses trials such as vivisection-the process of dissecting animals or using harmful chemicals on theirbody. It is common knowledge that many of the animals used inscientific test and experiment die a few months after the gruelingexperiences. Pew Research (2010) established that about 43% ofAmericans surveyed in a one of its studies on the use of animals fortesting stated the use of animals for scientific studies. Millions ofsmall such as rats and mice and medium animals such as dogs and catsare killed each year in the U.S in scientific experiments (HumanSociety International 1). There exist few organizations that protectthe rights and welfare of animals. In the US, the only law thatregulates animal testing is the Animal Welfare Act. Regrettably theAnimal Welfare Act set and state the extent to which scientist shouldgo with their tests involving animals (ProCon 1).In addition, the rules of law put in force by the department ofagriculture do not apply to rats and mice that account for more than90% of the animals tests (ProCon 1). Animal testing is not only cruelbut also unethical and dangerous, and can be avoided at all costs.

Reasonswhy Animal Testing should be banned

Animaltesting is inhumane. Based on the information given Human SocietyInternational (2012), animals used in research experiments andtesting are usually subjected to forced breathing and feeding, waterand food withdrawal, wounds and burns, and long periods of physicalmoderation to experiment medicinal processes. Other tests such asthe Draize eye experiment, used by aesthetic and cosmetic firmscompanies to assess irritation caused by different products, entailthe incapacitation of animals for numerous days. Some common testssuch as the lethal dose 50 seek to establish the level of dosage thatcan kill half of the animal under test (ProCon 1). In 2010, theDepartment of Agriculture indicated that thousands of animalssuffered pain during tests, in processes where no anesthesia was used(American Anti-Vivisection Society 1). This included monkeys, guineapigs, rats, mice, and rabbits. It is not possible to fathom the painand suffering that these animals undergo in such test but the bottomline is that it is unethical and inhumane.

Figure1: AnimalTesting

Source:debate.org

Withthe breakthrough in technology, there exist alternative testingmethods that do not cause harm or death of living creatures. Thereare many human alternatives in the modern world, that provide moreaccurate results and that can replace animal testing (ProCon 1).Available options such as Vitro testing that use cells derived fromanimals in a petri dish are able to give better and more relevantoutcome than animals test. Researchers such as Hickman James from theUniversity of Central Florida have developed technologies that mimichuman muscular function that allows scientists to monitor thefunctions and response to various treatments (ProCon 1). There isalso the 3-D printing than can act as a substitute to animal testing.Also, micro dosing, that entails the administration of small doses tohuman volunteers can also be used to analyze blood and adversereactions. Bioengineering has produced artificial human skin such asthincert that are made of human skin cells grown in the test tube andthat can give more relevant results than testing chemicals on theskin of animals (ProCon 1). Scientists can also use computer modelsthat reconstruct the molecular structure in the human body, topredict the toxicity of drugs and other chemicals instead of testingon helpless animals.

Itis also evident that animals are different from human beings andhence make poor test subjects. The cellular, metabolic and anatomicdifferences between animals and human make them poor models forhumans (ProCon 1). It is very difficult to generate an animal modelthat equate to what scientist strive to achieve in the human. Forexample, a drug test done using rats may not generate relevant andaccurate reaction in humans since humans are not a 70 kg rats.Scientists have cured many diseases in mice and rats but have notbeen able to translate that to human because of physiologicaldifferences.

Conclusion

Animalsshould not be subjected to painful and fatal tests and experimentsfor human benefits. Animals have rights to live on the planet withoutunnecessary sufferings and torture. Human should not assert theirdominance over animals by using them in test because that does notmake us look strong but weak. Today there are many alternatives thatgive relevant and better outcomes than animal tests. Bioengineeringhas transformed the old framework of testing drugs, by creatingartificial human skin, muscles and other organs that can be used in ascientific test. It is time for human beings to let animals out oflaboratories.

WorksCited

AmericanAnti-Vivisection Society..Endingthe Use of Animals in Science.2015. Retrieved from:http://aavs.org/animals-science/how-animals-are-used/testing/

Debate.org.Doesanimal testing have to be stopped?.Retrieved from:http://www.debate.org/opinions/does-animal-testing-have-to-be-stopped

HumanSociety International. AboutAnimal Testing.2010. Retrieved from:http://www.hsi.org/campaigns/end_animal_testing/qa/about.html

ProCon.org.ShouldAnimals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?2015. Retrieved from: http://animal-testing.procon.org/