Why Is Animal Testing Wrong

Animal testing has been an ethical battle in the United States for the past 100+ years. Dissection on animals has gone as far back as 500 B.C. In that time some physicians argued that animals lacked intelligence and so could not experience pain while other counteracted that they could, but the issue itself was of minimal importance. The 19th century brought around greater public objection and began the anti-vivisection movement. Claude Bernard, a French physiologist, said that experimenting on animals benefited the development of medicine and prolonging of human life and so was ethical. Queen Victoria on the other hand was horrified of the treatment of the animals and through campaigning established Great Britain’s Cruelty to Animals Act of …show more content…
What was demonstrated is because of the over exaggerated potential media, researcher, universities and lobbyist have associated with animal research in the advancement of medicine. Even if animal testing has contributed to the cause, the means of getting there is terribly inhumane. Animals are subjected to cruel treatment and environments. They are force fed, made to inhale things unwillingly, tranquilized, deprived of food and water, periods of restraint, mutilations and burnings. These experimenters perform all of these acts in the name of science and advancement. The Animal Welfare Act that the supporters so dearly stand behind does not cover 95% of the animals used in the labs. The AWA does not cover birds, mice, rats and cold-blooded animals; this means the law does not protect their safeguard. In 1997, Joseph and Charles Vacanti, grew a “human” ear on a live mouse because he wanted to see if the fabrication of body parts could be done. To test eye irritating products, rabbits are restrained with there eyes held open so that they may not blink. These experiments may last days at a time with the rabbits being held in those positions the entire time. In a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2010, 97,123 animals experience pain throughout the experiments. In many …show more content…
In these dishes, cell cultures can be studied and the results could be even more reliable because human cell could be used. Testing irritation products on artificial human skin, like EpiDerm and ThinCert, would also be more logical than testing it on animals who’s genetic difference could deviate true results. Computer models can predict toxicity without unnecessary trials on animals. Although humans share organs in common with beasts there are anatomic, metabolic and cellular differences. The failed attempts of products on animals can discourage researchers and possibly make them miss an extremely helpful treatment. One such circumstance was the almost shelved drug Fk-506 that is now used in lowering the risk of organ transplant rejection. In 1950 the sleeping pill thalidomide, who had past the test on animals before being released to the public, cause 10,000 babies to be born with birth defects. Another drug called Vioxx cause 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac arrests before it was withdrawn.
The economic cost is also outstanding. Billions of tax dollars goes to animal testing, to give an estimate, about $14 billion of $31 billion of the annual budget goes to this cause. In vitro testing is significantly cheaper than the usual methods but of course the multi-billion dollar animal research industry benefits more through the costly experiments. Proof of their profits is shown in Jackson Laboratory that

Show More