The Ethicality Of Animal Experimentation

According to Watts in “Animal Testing: is it worth it?” from the British Medical Journal, there is no need for animal experimentation since there are other alternatives to the testing, and because of this many labs have already put these alternatives into practice. With modern technology being so advanced, animal experimentation is not needed anymore. The replacements of the live experiments are organs, tissues, and cells that are created in labs. The replacements are gaining popularity in the field of science; for instance, polio and rabies testing has been improved by the implementation of these new replacements. Many organizations have formed because of the rising popularity of this new method of testing. These organizations help

Many of the concerns of the ethicality of animal experimentation is understood by the people who still believe animal testing is necessary. Many regulations are enforced on animal studies in an attempt to make them as moral as possible. Additionally, there are also campaigns that advocate the regulation on animal testing “ which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices “ (Hajar 7). They understand the upset at the idea of animal testing, and they want to appease the masses by keeping the testing as humane as it can possibly be. Even with all of the outcry, there is a large group of people that see animal experimentation as a necessary evil. Many see it as “ total elimination of animal testing will significantly set back the development of essential medical devices, medicines, and treatment” (Hajar 7). Animal testing is a necessary evil that has been extremely beneficial to humans and is crucial to the advancement of medicine in the

There are many ways that animal testing greatly reduces expenses on studies and research. The normal costs of research into medicinal studies is shockingly expensive. If something goes wrong due to the lack of testing, it causes the development process to become even longer than it was originally intended to last. This adds onto an already lengthy bill. According to Annamaria Bottini, “ animal tests provide their contribution, both with regard to costs and time to market and, more importantly, when wrong decisions on the efficacy and safety of lead substances are taken based on the animal tests performed in the R&D process” (Bottini 9). Moreover, Animal testing makes a astronomical difference in the development process. It can eliminate mistakes that might occur if no testing or clinical testing is done. If a mistake is not caught, it can cost a company a lot of money in going back to resolve the issue that could have been avoided in the first place. That time spent going back costs, researchers a great sum of money. Animal testing can save time which is crucial when someone is trying to deliver a medicine out to the public who needs it as soon as