Animal Testing Satire

We as humans have created a world for ourselves through scientific advancements, but our morals and ethics seem to have been left in the dust. One of the most blatant examples of this is scientific testing of cosmetic products on innocent animals. To help set a scene of what happens, picture your dog or cat locked up in a small kennel only affording them space to curl up unmoving for their entire lives, only taken out to be poked and prodded with needles. Harmful chemicals are injected into their bodies so scientists can observe the reactions an animal might have to products dreamed up in their labs. Keep in mind these dangerous chemicals would cause too much harm to humans that are exposed to them. This becomes justification to sentence innocent

It has been used for medical and chemical research since the 1920s. It evaluates the toxicity of consumer products and their ingredients without harming the humans that will utilize them. Mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys are just some of the several different animals that have been experimented on. There happen to be around thirteen different types of test that are being used on animals. Most, if not all, physically harm the animal after it has been administered. There are no laws requiring cosmetics and household products to be tested on animal, just laws about lawn chemicals. So why do we as a society condone with this abuse? Because we believe humans are too precious/ valuable to participate in harmful studies and that animals do not have any

Marc Bekoff, Ph.D. professor at University of Colorado in Boulder, explains that the vast majority of drugs, 92 percent according to the FDA, that pass tests on animals do not happen to work on humans (Bekoff). Scientists cannot accurately predict how a chemical will behave on a human because less that 10 percent of the human illnesses being tested for are seen in animals. That would make sense because animals are completely different when compared to a human. If animal testing is just based on a bunch of luck, than it is wasteful to be testing on an animal. Dr. Ronald Davis of Stanford University has a negative interpretation on animal testing. He states that researchers are too fixated in trying to cure mice, that they forget we are trying to cure humans (Cunningham). It goes to show that we invest in all of this time experimenting on animals, that we forget humans are going to give a different reaction because we’re not built like a mouse or a