Opposing Arguments Against Animal Testing

According to my research, animals has been in used for scientific testing early as 500 B.C. Scientist use animals purposely for medical treatment, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and healthcare uses (Animal Testing, 4). It is estimated that over 26 million animals are used yearly in the U.S for scientific testing or other purpose. The reason why animals testing is so important for scientist and ultimately human race is because, animals testing allow the progress of life saving treatment for humans and animals. Second profound reason is, there no alternative means of conducting research that requires a complete living organism. The useage of animals

That is true, and it is inevitable, but what we can all agree upon is, only 95 percent of animals use for research are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and those animals are, rats, birds, mice, and some cold blooded animals such as reptile and some fish (“animal-testing.procon.org” 1). Here is one counterclaim argument that is use in defense against the use of animals for scientific research, for example on the site debate.org, a user posted that “experimenters are willing to pay people a lot to be tested on in place of animals. Well why would anyone want to be tested on? Because they are in need of money, example: the homeless. If more people would be tested on in place of animals, there 'd be less poverty, less animal suffering, and more accurate results” (Emily16 4). The quote undermines the purpose of using animals for testing. Therefore, I disagree with Emily16 because she believe if we use human as test subject in place of animals like rat, mice there will be less poverty in the world, that is just an absurd statement. Emily16 clearly does not think it is inhumane if we conduct test on human and consequently not pleasing human which can ends up causing