Among the myriad controversies that light up conversations and appear on untactful tongues, animal testing is no foreign one. Dating back to as late as the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, revered philosophers such as Aristotle and Socrates performed experiments on living animals, Roman physicians dissected goats and pigs, and Arab doctors practiced dissection on animals before performing surgeries on human patients (Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History, 2013). As long as experimentation has been a large proponent in enhancing human life, over 20 million animals each year double as experimental proxies, in addition to those playing the role of our furry best friends (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? 2017). Yet, as …show more content…
But despite the so-called benefits it brings, there is no doubt that the issue is heavily surrounded by controversy, thus highlighting the obvious malice associated with it. There are pros and cons to everything. Yet, in cases such as this one, I believe not that animal testing should be completely abolished, but that it should be severely be cut down to be used only for scientific discovery and medical cures. Testing animals for commercial reasons highlight not only the blatant immorality of it, but the indefectible alternatives that can replace it, and the important technicalities that are not covered or resolved by animal testing procedures; however, under necessary conditions animal testing should be permitted when absolutely crucial for the medical and scientific …show more content…
When it comes to commercial reasons, such as the cosmetics industry, it is foolish and inhumane to use animals as testers; there are definitely alternative methods, perhaps those that are also more cost-effective in addition to the priceless act of preserving lives. Methods that are available to researchers include in vitro testing, which involves studying cell cultures in glass dishes; micro-dosing, using minuscule doses in human volunteers so no damage is done; and artificial human skin in place of animal skin. Microfluidic chips and computers also provide exceptional recreations and predictions. In fact, many of these alternative methods are actually more cost-effective than testing on animals (Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing? 2017). Hundreds of higher-end companies like Wet N’ Wild, Smashbox Cosmetics, Urban Decay, Tarte, Too Faced Cosmetics, Lush, Kiss My Face, and Bath & Body Works boast “cruelty-free” or “not tested on animals” plastered across their products or on their websites. So, why can’t all of