Animal testing. All know about it, some know the details behind it, but very few actually try to take a stand against it. There’s great controversy behind it, a classic tale of morality versus progress. But when humans test on animals, these living, breathing, creatures, is any progress actually being made? Over twenty million animals are killed annually due to this, yet people turn a blind eye. Humans, as a species, have grown over time to believe that being more developed means being more superior. A statement such as that couldn’t be more false. All living creatures who can feel pain should not be subjected to that. Where do moral obligations lie? Is there even a significant difference between testing on animals and testing on humans? If a human being can’t even treat different species with the same amount of respect they would treat another, then the line between …show more content…
Scientists simply use animals out of habit for already knowing how they may react to a product. It’s laziness on their part. Over several of the past years, groups of scientists who were supposedly against animal testing have developed alternatives to it, such as third dimensional human skin equivalents. Animal testing is just cheaper and easier to get ahold of. Over eight million animals a year are exposed to extremely painful experiments, for what gain? Does dumping a group of captured polar bears into an oil-filled tank seem like progress? How about chopping off all the legs of baby mice? That has little to no scientific merit whatsoever. Even if researchers do happen to come across something that may have some utter significance to humans, how many animals must be tortured in the process? As Claire Andre says, “Animals are starved, shocked, burned, and poisoned, just to see if something may happen,”(Andre, Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small). When did this become