Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Inhumane Experimentations

Is animal experimentation necessary? Should we opt for a different form of research? Many would oppose with the idea of looking for a different method, but if people really knew how inhumane animal testing was people would ask for different options. Animal testing has occurred since ancient Greek and Roman times. While at the beginning fewer animals were in the process for a short period of time, throughout existence more animal species have been used for an even longer time ranging from 12 to 18 months. The exploitation of animal testing occurs in larger places such as medical facilities and other public corporations. Animal testing should be banned especially from large corporations due to its unethical and inhumane

One of those advances would be studying medicine (including anatomy and how the body reacts). Hippocrates is known as the father of medicine for his medical notes and observations. While he studied medicine, Hippocrates never really dissected on anyone. On the other hand, Greek physician Galen dissected on corpses for knowledge. While this might not seem like a huge impact, it opened a door to a new era of research far more gruesome than imaginable. Modern animal testing uses a large variation of animals and locks them up for a long time period 12 through 18 months which is more than a dozen times longer compared to the beginning of FDCA (Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) regulation testing. As stated by Kim Masters Evans, “the first tests were conducted on rats and could last less than one month," (Research Animals 8). Sadly, with time more guidelines were created which caused animals like “rats or dogs [to be tested] for up to six months" (Research Animals 8). These types of guidelines accepted by the FDCA gave multiple opportunities for other guidelines to be created such as "testing on pregnant animals. New guidelines for testing the effects of drugs on animal reproduction and fetus development were incorporated into the FDCA" (Research Animals 8). Tragically, this is not the worst thing about these

A small percentage of animal experimentation derives from dissection, which is used in schools as a teaching method. Sadly, most of the animals used in experimentations are not really for any medical advancement. As stated in Animal Testing is Bad Science, " Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses." (Animal Testing is Bad Science 1) This statement proves that animal experimentation is unnecessary for medical advancement in both schools and professional outlets. Most universities do not make medical students to perform on animals if that person does not want to. We live in a time where there are options for mostly everything. For example, "Nearly 95% of U.S medical schools-including Yale, Harvard, and Stanford- do not use any animals to train medical students and experience with animal dissection or experimentation on live animals is not required or expected of those applying to medical school." (Animal Testing is Bad Science 3) If high elite universities like Yale and Harvard do not require students to do such procedures, then public brands such as cosmetics or luxury items should not test on animals as