Should Animal Testing Be Banned? Essay
Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products - Should Animal Testing Be Banned? Essay introduction. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer, while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity. It is true that medicines and other products are routinely tested on animals before they are cleared for human use. While there really are some things that animal testing should not be used for, I would have to support a limited amount of animal experimentation for the development of medicines and products. On the one hand, there are clear ethical arguments against animal experimentation. To use a common example of this practice, laboratory mice may be given an illness so that the effectiveness of a new drug can be measured.
Opponents of such research argue that humans have no right to subject animals to this kind of trauma, and that the lives of all creatures should be respected. They believe that the benefits to humans do not justify the suffering caused, and that scientists should use alternative methods of research. On the other hand, reliable alternatives to animal experimentation may not always be available. Supporters of the use of animals in medical research believe that a certain amount of suffering on the part of mice or rats can be justified if human lives are saved. They argue that opponents of such research might feel differently if a member of their own families needed a medical treatment that had been developed through the use of animal experimentation. Many people are concerned that animals are suffering unnecessarily and cruelly. They do not believe that every new drug needs to be tested on animals, especially with the huge database of knowledge and modern computer models.
More Essay Examples on Animal Rubric
They also are worried that many animal tests are ineffective, pointing out that any drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market despite extensive testing. They particularly feel that animal testing should not be used for non-essential products such as cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, and cleaning products. Furthermore, some campaigners would like to see certain tests replaced and more humane methods used. Many scientist and governments state that animal testing should cause as little suffering to animals as possible, and that animal tests should only be performed where necessary. The “Three Rs” which are reduction, refinement and replacement are guiding principles for the use of animals in research in most countries. Whilst replacement of animals, i.e alternatives to animal testing, is one of the principles, their scope is much broader. Alternative methods include positron emission tomography (PET) , which allows scanning of the human brain in vivo, and comparative epidemiological studies of disease risk factors among human populations. Although such principles have been welcomes as a step forwards by some animal welfare groups, they have also been criticized as both outdated by current research, and of little practical effect in improving animal welfare. Offiial bodies such as the European commission, the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods in the US, ZEBET in Germany, and the Japanese Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (amongs others) also promote and disseminate the 3Rs.
These bodies are mainly driven by responding by regulatory requirements, such as supporting the cosmetics testing ban in the EU by validating alternative methods. The European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing serves as a liason between the European commission and industries. The European consensus Platform for Alternatives Coordinates efforts amongst EU member states. Acadamic center also investigate alternatives, including the Center for Altirnatives to Animal testing at the Johns Hopkins University and the NC3Rs in the UK. After all , animal testing should not stop or be banned because it is the most accurate way to know if a product is safe and can be used by people without being any harm for them or not and also because it is an excellent source to increase scientific knowledge. It helps in finding ways to help save lives of other animals and humans by testing lifesaving drugs and processes. A few animals tend to react the same way likr humans in response to certain diseases and allergies that’s one of the reasons why scientists use them in testing because this also helps them find a cure for certain diseases by studying these animals. A lot of humans could have died already if we did not use animal testing, so in all of the animal testing supporters’ opinion, animals’ lives redeem humans’ lives because humans’ lives are much more precious than the animal ones.