The Morality of Animal Testing Essay Example for Free

The Morality of Animal Testing Essay Animal testing is undoubtedly one of the most controversial issues in modern society. This practice began in the 19th century; animals were used to test dosing of certain drugs and chemicals. In the 1920’s, animals were also being used to test pesticides and food additives (Fano, 11). Today, animal testing is used to study everything from cosmetics to cancer. With such a wide range of opinions on animal rights and human priority, it is no wonder that this topic is so controversial. There are people who have an extreme view on the issue and are either completely pro or completely con. In my opinion, the issue of animal testing is far too complex for one simple answer; its morality lies somewhere in between the two poles. Animal testing is acceptable if it results in saving people’s lives. It is not acceptable, however, if it results in personal or cosmetic products that are far from vital to the human race. Those who are in favor of animal testing justify it many different ways. Thomas Hamm, a toxicologist and veterinarian, argues that, â€Å"We can’t protect the environment, or people in general, without doing some animal testing. If you’re pro-environment but opposed to animal testing, you’re on shaky ground, because the two positions just aren’t compatible with each other† (Fano, 44). In order to have a safe and successful society, he argues, we must use animals to test chemicals, drugs, treatments, and anything else that will further our knowledge of improving the world, at least for humans. Many people are of the same mind as Hamm. Animal testing reduces the risks of many products, like cosmetics and medication, among many others. Scientists can put safety standards in place for products based on their findings via animal testing. Often, animals will react badly or even die from certain chemicals or combinations, make the humans that use the products far safer. But the most important argument of those in favor of anima l testing is its reliability and comprehensiveness. By using another living being, it is much easier to understand the effects of a drug or chemical on the body and assess its risks. Another positive aspect of animal testing is its convenience. Rodents are the most common test subjects in laboratories. Mice in particular have a relatively short lifespan. This allows scientists to observe a single organism’s life in its entirety in a reasonable time. You could see how a drug, when taken as a baby or adolescent would affect the animal later on in its life. Because many test subjects are bred specifically for the testing purpose, Scientists are able to manipulate, observe, and control every aspect of that animal’s life. This reduces the risk of other variables affecting the outcome of the experiment, making it more accurate. A researcher would know the animal’s entire medical history, which would be necessary in understanding the outcome of several different experiments. Scientists are allowed to kill these animals after the experiment is completed, allowing them to look at how the drug or chemical affected the animal’s entire body system , instead of just its visible affects. For instance, a researcher might observe a given vaccine to have been safe on the mouse, as it was healthy and lived a long life, even though it could have had a hidden negative effect only visible inside its body (Fano, 45). However, the opposition has equally strong and numerous arguments against animal testing. A very popular argument for those against animal testing is its inaccuracy. While it is true animal testing allows you to observe the effects of a drug on an entire body system, some argue that people and the animals used in testing are just too different (Blue). A drug’s safety for a mouse or rabbit cannot ensure safety for humans, who are genetically and biologically much different. This argument has obvious validity; dog owners consider it common knowledge that dogs cannot eat chocolate for safety reasons, and humans in general clearly have no health problems with chocolate. The same could be argued for various medications and products. The main arguments for those who are anti-animal testing is simple: it is inhumane. As an animal lover, some of the research I did included testimonies and photographs that were completely horrifying. Some animals had tufts of fur missing, obvious infections, and missing body parts, like arms and eyeballs. The basic assumption behind animal testing is that animals are lesser than humans (Hayhurst, 10). Those opposed to animal testing have conflicting beliefs and think that, â€Å"other animals have the same rights to life that human animals have† (Hayhurst, 10). Many people, myself included, have opinions somewhere in between these two extremes (Hayhurst, 11). Using animals as test subjects is not so black and white; there are many grey areas. Animals should have the right to live, but not to the same degree as the human species. As awful as it sounds, we view this idea at work everyday. Killing a person obviously has more serious consequences that killing an animal. Animals’ lives are simply not as valued as those of humans. So if the result of using animals as test subjects is a cure for a deadly disease that affects the human race, like cancer, many people believe this is a justified act. In other words, it is acceptable to kill animals if it helps save people’s lives. If animals were used as test subjects for just these types of purposes, it is likely that the animal rights debate would not be nearly as controversial. But the problem is that animal testing is used for much less necessary purposes. Countless cosmetic companies use animals to test their products, such as eye shadow, shampoo, and contact lens solution (Hayhurst, 10). These products are not even coming close to saving people’s lives, yet animals often suffer and die for their production. Many cosmetic companies have either stopped or never started using animals as test subjects. The European Union banned animal testing on personal cosmetic products and the import of products that do use animals. So it is clear that producing these types of products without using animal testing is possible, as many companies do it. However, other companies continue to make animals suffer and often die in the production process (Ellin). The animal rights debate has a long history and has no end in sight. Everyone has a different opinion about the morality of using animals as test subjects. Some are pro, some are con, and some are in between. Those in between believe the purpose of the tests determine its moral rightness or wrongness. To put it simply, it just depends on the situation. If animals must suffer or even die in order to save a human life, then it is justified. But making even one animal suffer to produce unnecessary products, as discussed earlier, is completely immoral and should be brought to an end. Because animal testing encompasses many touchy topics, like an animal’s right to life and the differing importance of animal and human life, people will continue to debate it until there is an alternative that is equal parts ethical, useful, accurate, and convenient. Work Cited: * Hayhurst, Chris. Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. print. * Fano, Alex. Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health, and Environmental Policy. New York: Zed Books Ltd., 1997. print. * Balls, Michael. â€Å"Alternatives to Animal Testing: Toward Reducing Uncertainty and Unintended Consequences.† AATEX 16.3 (2011): 101-110 * Blue, Laura. â€Å"How Much Does Animal Testing Tell Us?† Time Magazine 17 June 2008. online. * Ellin, Abby. â€Å"Leaving Animals Out of the Cosmetics Picture.† New York Times 28 December 2011. online.