The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

How would you feel if you found out your precious Fido or Fiona was in a laboratory being used as a test subject? Take the feelings you had if you found out and apply them to the animals who are actually in the lab. Do these animals not deserve the same sympathy? The products you may have on now could have been tested on an animal. The testing they endure I consider to be inhumane and unnecessary. Furthermore, most animals aren’t covered by the Animal Welfare act. Insert sentence about rights of animals (equal rights). To combat this problem, there are alternatives to using animals. Testing is harmful to the animals in the laboratory. According to dosomething.org, research has shown that when mice were exposed to painful stimuli they made

No product is worth the inhumane treatment that the animals go through. The Humane Society’s description of their treatments is abysmal. A few of these unnecessary tests run on animals are skin sensitization, skin irritation and eye irritation. All of these tests are used to see whether or not he subject has a reaction to the product. The amount of animals needed for these tests seems unreal. For the skin sensitization test, 32 guinea pigs or 16 mice are used. The products are placed directly on the skin or injected into the guinea pig. The mice have it rubbed on their ears. All of this just to see if they have some sort of response to it. Furthermore, when the experiments conclude the animals brutally euthanized. The killing process is unnecessary. There are better ways to put down an animal that is in pain. All of this could be avoided if people saw animals as beings that are capable of emotion rather than test

They may say that testing human cells that grow inside of a petri dish is not the same as testing on something that contains a nervous system and is capable of reacting to the stimulus. Where their argument falls apart is that alternatives to animal testing are often more dependable. Animal testing is not reliable. A cosmetic product or a medicine being tested may pass the test in the laboratory, but fail when they reach the human testing phase. Different species react differently to different things. The people who are advocates for animal testing may think of it as a way for companies to test product safety and efficiency while removing any chances of them having law suits thrown at them. They do this by identifying the potential hazards. The companies do not want to market a product that can result in any legal claim. I’m sure the company does not want to be held liable for someone’s face swelling up after they used