Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

1346 Words6 Pages

Testing medications on animals for the benefit of human beings is morally wrong and can be very expensive. It is also wrong because animals have no say in the matter if they want to be tested on or not. Since the medications are for human life, they should test the medications on humans. Since they test the medications on animals instead of humans there is no guarantee that the medications are going to be beneficial to humans. Animals are meant to be loved and bring joy to a person’s life, not be forced have no say in what happens to theirs. It is unethical to test medications on animals for human benefit knowing that they suffer from it.
The origin of animal testing can be traced backed to when medicines were first being discovered. Animal testing did not start off as conducting research for medicines, but research to understand how animals functioned. “ In ancient times, scientists made use of animals principally to satisfy anatomical curiosity. Early Greek physician-scientists performed experiments on living animals. Herophilus and Erasistratus, for example, examined sensory nerves, motor nerves, and tendons in order to understand their functional differences” (Scutti). In the beginning animal testing was meant …show more content…

The testis is testing animals for no reason and not even documented them, so some animals are getting tested for extra benefits. “A total of 35.8% (34/95) of these published chimpanzee studies were cited by 116 papers that clearly did not describe well developed methods for combating human diseases. Only 14.7% (14/95) of these chimpanzee experiments were cited by 27 papers with abstracts indicating well developed methods for combating human diseases.” (Knight 291). This quote explains how they do all these experiments; only half of them are documented and most them do not even work. It also explains how they are performing extra tests for no reason and costing the government extra