Why Is Animal Testing Necessary Evil

Animal Testing: Necessary Evil or Just Evil? It is ironic for humans to find the need to substantiate their stance on being the superior species, when in fact we are all equals in being animals. Does this justify the deeds done in our favour against our unfortunate counterparts? These cruel and inhumane acts are forced upon helpless animals, which had absolutely no say in our ‘courageous’ voyage in the name of science for our own selfish needs. This heated debate questions ethical reasoning and the plausible justifications of such actions taken. In the following, comparison and contrast is drawn from “Conscientious Objection to Harmful Animal Use within Veterinary and Other Biomedical Education” written by Andrew Knight (2014), and “Public

Ormandy and A. Schuppli (2014) states that people are also largely affected by the individuals’ prior experience with animals. (p. 4) Hence, there is a direct relation between their experience with animals and how they feel towards animal testing. In their research, it is said that a more negative onset in their earlier years would indirectly cause a more negative outlook on animals, which in turn justifies their stand strongly for animal testing. (p. 5) However, personally I feel that this is very subjective to each individual. There are many other factors that one may be influenced by and a prior experience may not be the sole reason for their stance in animal testing given the extensive experience everyone accumulates with time. It should be taken into consideration that Knight (2014), H. Ormandy and A. Schuppli (2014) all agree that the needs for removing animal research practices are

Ormandy and A. Schupppli (2014) believe that there is a need to better understand the current situation of animal testing, but have differing opinions on how they should go about assessing and dealing with the issue. To be able to change the mindsets of the society, Knight (2014) believes that it starts in education. Students themselves should take initiative by submitting documents that are not as objective as how they should be, allowing alternatives to be sourced and prepared to educate the future generations better. (p. 4) However, H. Ormandy and A. Schuppli (2014) believe that we should look at the macro perspective by researching on the public attitudes towards animal testing and regulate the trend towards more justifiable democratic scientific research. (p. 2) Both authors agree that there is space for improvement in terms of how the public can work towards a more democratic view of animal testing. The difference is Knight (2014) believes in working from bottom up, starting with the students or our eventual workforce of the future. While H. Ormandy and A. Schuppli (2014) chooses a more macro perspective of governmental powers to research on facilitating the public. I believe that both authors have their valid points in which both problems should be addressed accordingly. If we attend to both micro and macro needs, we would be able to meet on common grounds much easier as there is mutual understanding and cooperation between