The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

Since Ancient Greece, humans have used animals as a means of learning more about the world. The first known vivisection was done by a Greek philosopher, Alcmaeon, in 450 BCE (“Animal” 1). Since then, animals have had invasive tests performed on them, they have been killed, and they have been experimented on in the name of science or for profit. Some experiments are in order to demonstrate already known facts to students, while others are to further medical knowledge, and some are to test drugs and cosmetics (“Animal” 2). Animals are used, and have been used for millennia, in order to make products, procedures, and life in general, safer for humans―stemming from the belief that human lives are more important than animals’. In order to moralize

One disputer against animal testing was Mark Twain, who wrote “A Dog’s Tale,” a short story about the unfair treatment of animals which brought awareness to this issue (Evans 3). Another key disputer of animal testing is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA, Mark Twain, and other organizations and individuals against animal experimentation disagreed with cruel treatments, unnecessary experiments, and had ethical concerns regarding animal testing (Evans 5). Those against animal testing demanded regulations against animal cruelty. As their numbers grew, their demands became increasingly difficult to ignore. The Cruelty to Animals Act was passed in 1849 in Great Britain, and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was passed in 1966 in the United States (Evans 4). The Cruelty to Animals Act restricted the use of animals for research purposes while the AWA called for all research facilities funded by the government and using mammals to have a trained veterinarian, minimize animal pain wherever possible, and be inspected by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee―IACUC (Evans 8). IACUC’s judge whether or not animal use is necessary and can reject, accept, or modify protocols. Although IACUC’s are said to be impartial, some disagree. According to Scott Plous and Harold Herzog, ninety-eight percent of the proposals were approved by IACUCs of the institution (Lee 3). Opponents to animal testing voiced

Some reasons for animal use may be considered necessary, such as food or labor. Even animal testing before such innovations such as synthetic skin, computer models, or in vitro models - cells grown in Petri dishes or in test tubes - may be seen as unavoidable (“Ratting” 1). However, after these scientific advances, animal experimentation and animal research are not as necessary as before. In vitro tests are often more cost-efficient and time-efficient than animals tests (“Limitations” 2). With these alternatives, scientific knowledge can advance faster and more affordably than before. A decrease in animal testing will not only help animals, but it will help science. Although some say that scientific experimentation is not a cruel endeavor (using reasons such as proper handling, maintaining the health of the animal, and the replication of the animals’ natural environments being taught to students in order to preserve uncontaminated results), animals still die by the millions unnecessarily each year (“Ratting” 2). Ending all animal testing immediately is highly irrational and improbable. There is already a gradual decrease in animal experimentation, but humanity has to decrease animal testing at a higher rate, removing all unnecessary forms of experimentation by using alternatives, and eventually,