Do you have any animals at home? If yes how much do they mean to you? A lot I’d assume. Now let me ask this, are you aware of animal testing and what affect it has all helpless animals? Animal testing is inhumane and there must be an alternative to solve this malicious way of science and cosmetic studies. Losing innocent animal lives due to testing of cosmetics, science, or medicine effects on them is cruel and unjust.

According to crueltyfreeinternational.org an animal test is “any scientific experiment or test in which a live animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.”(end quote) The argument to justify animal testing argues that by testing and running experiments on animals we further our science and medicine studies and that without this technique we wouldn’t be as advanced as we are today. Testing on animals goes against their rights, as animals they deserve as much rights as we do when it comes to harming their life.

The worst part of animal experimentation isn’t always the experiment but it’s getting the animal into the condition they need them in to begin the experiment, scientist will create heart attacks, heart failure, abnormal heart rhythms, strokes, and other cardiovascular traumas in monkeys, dogs, pigs, and other animals, Drop weights onto rodents to produce spinal cord injuries and paralysis, Produce fatal burn injuries in dogs to study burn treatments, use pigs, goats, and monkeys in military trauma research and training; injuries include shooting, blunt and sharp traumas, burns, amputations, emergency surgery procedures, and administration of toxic drugs. These are just some of the injuries that they induce on animals just to test their medicine that most likely doesn’t save the animal but ends up killing them.

            There are many reasons why animal experimentation should be replaced with a more humane and reliable alternative. First of all for the animals’ sake, according to an article titled “No such thing as humane animal experimentation” “Animals that are experimented on show measurable physiological stress responses to laboratory procedures that have until now been viewed as relatively benign, a new study claims.” That is no way for an innocent animal to live his/her life.

            Experimenting on animals hasn’t always been a reliable source. We can’t rely on the outcome of an experiment that is done on an animal and expect it to have the same outcome on a human. “Strychnine, for example, kills people but not monkeys, and belladonna is deadly to humans yet harmless to rabbits.”(Tatchell, 18) Based off of this research, this shows the way animal testing can vary and how risky is can be. You can test a substance for years yet still have a fatal consequence. “The anti-rheumatic drug Opren killed 76 people in Britain and caused serious illness to 3,500 others, despite having been declared safe after seven years of animal research.”(Tatchell, 18)

            Not only is it wrong to test our medicine on animals but cosmetics is even worse because it’s just for beauty purposes mostly. While animals squirm and cry in panic, breaking bones and bending uncomfortably, for Mascara, eyeliner, hair products etc. The life of an animal is worth more than those products and we need to find an alternative. “…computer models that use, for example, “cell and skin tissue cultures and corneas from eye banks.”(Cruel Beauty) This from of research is said to be cheaper and more efficient than testing on animals.

            “Animals have moral standing; that is, they have properties (including the ability to feel pain) that qualify them for the protections of morality. It follows from this that humans have moral obligations towards animals, and because rights are logically correlative to obligations, animals have rights”(Beauchamp). As humans we should care enough to protect all the different types of life on this earth whether it be human or non-human, life should always be considered and protected. Animal rights are abandoned by not just scientists but all humans in general.

            Though animal testing is extremely common there are more efficient and beneficial courses of action that can be taken for both drug development and cosmetic products testing. “The advent of the computer aided drug design techniques makes it easy to get an insight into the structural and molecular requirements influencing the biological activity of the drugs.” (Soni, 71) This is one of many other ways to test medicine through technology and not on an animal. As much as we can’t rely on animal testing it can also be risky to rely on technology and the results that come out of an experiment based on computer research, but it is more benevolent than torturing and even killing an innocent animal.

            To just about any problem there is a solution. The solution to stopping animal experimentation that I would like to introduce is In Vitro (in glass) testing. According to research, In vitro is “…studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.”( animal-testing.procon.org) Using this technique scientists can study many different things such as tissue from different species, including humans, can be analyzed and examined, mutagenic and carcinogenic effects of drugs can be tested. The results from this type of experimentation is said to possibly be more rapid and precise than those of animal testing.

            Another solution to the problem of animal testing is Microdosing. Microdosing is a technique used to test drugs and the effects in humans through the administration of doses so low they are unlikely to be affected throughout their body. This way of studying medicine is better not only because humans can actually volunteer to undergo the experiment but this can be more reliable and much more accurate than if tested on an animal. The best characteristic about this is it is mostly voluntary so no person or animal is harmed without consent.

            Both in vitro and microdosing are being used today by scientists but not enough. These two ways of experimentation should be practiced more often, more wide spread and also need to completely eliminate the need for animal testing. Not only are these ways more humane but they are more accurate and reliable. Animal experimentation itself is very expensive and not easy to access, in vitro and microdosing are cheaper and easier to access. 

            The price of animal testing isn’t cheap, financially and even emotionally. This way of experimentation is wasting thousands of government dollars that is given towards farthing medical research. Based off of my research an example that shows the cost difference between animal testing versus an alternative, “unscheduled DNA synthesis” animal test costs $32,000, while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. Also a “rat phototoxicity test” costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300 one more example is a “rat uterotrophic assay” costs $29,600, while the corresponding in vitro test costs $7,200.

            When providing a solution to animal testing not only did I consider the fact that its inhumane and unjust, I also considered more financially efficient alternatives, and also more reliable sources of research. The consideration of animals’ life needs to be involved in today scientific studies. As humans and being the most impacting species on the planet we need to find more friendly ways to test medicine and cosmetics other than torment and death on innocent creatures. Thanks to today’s growing technology there are other ways to study disease, medicine and cosmetics other than on animals. I hope that someday, in our near future we will no longer experiment on animals but use our more efficient and reliable alternatives to develop further research.

Works Cited

“No Such Thing as Humane Animal Experimentation.” Ecologist, vol. 35, no. 1, Feb. 2005, p. 9. EBSCOhost, chaffey.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16110696&site=ehost-live.

Tatchell, Peter. “Why Animal Research Is Bad Science.” New Statesman, vol. 133, no. 4700, 09 Aug. 2004, pp. 18-19. EBSCOhost, chaffey.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14027536&site=ehost-live.

“Cruel Beauty.” America, vol. 204, no. 19, 06 June 2011, p. 4. EBSCOhost, chaffey.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=61192075&site=ehost-live.

Beauchamp, Tom L. “Opposing Views on Animal Experimentation: Do Animals Have Rights?.” Ethics & Behavior, vol. 7, no. 2, June 1997, p. 113. EBSCOhost, chaffey.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7314306&site=ehost-live.

Soni, Love Kumar. “Alternative to Animal Screening Methods in Drug Research: Benefits beyond Measure.” International Journal of Pharmacy & Life Sciences, vol. 7, no. 9, Sept. 2016, p. 3. EBSCOhost, chaffey.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=118973176&site=ehost-live.

“Animal Testing – ProCon.org.” Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?, animal-testing.procon.org/. Accessed 9 May 2017.