Did you know how many animals are killed in American labs for research purposes each year? According to PETA, each year, more than 100 million animals are killed by American scientists as a part of experiment efforts. With so many animals dying, it is no surprise that this is an important issue. I have researched this issue, and in my research, I have learned much about the troubling state of animal experimentation in the United States. With so many facts against animal experimentation, this cruel practice in research should immediately be banned. One of the biggest arguments is it offers too few benefits but brings too much harm it brings. With that in mind, we will discuss the reasons why animal testing is wrong.
The key argument against animal experimentation is that this a cruel practice. No, it is not a practice, it is a torture! As we all know animals do feel pain. American scholars De Silva and Turner with other colleagues emphasize that animals DO feel physical pain. How would any of the supporters of animal experiments feel if a hole was drilled into his or her head or their skin was burnt off? How would they feel if in this case they had NO right to stop the torture? Indeed, these days scientists treat animals like lab equipment for the sake of efficiency, as the researchers Ferdowsian and Beck admit. Moreover, these experts note that there are few standards in place to ensure that labs do not engage in these practices. In addition, the animals suffer psychologically. Research has shown that poor animals experience horrible psychological trauma from how they are treated in experiments. The effect of the psychological trauma increases as the animals realize they are placed in cages and cannot avoid being clinically tortured.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Animal Testing Speech".
The cruelty of the practice is not the only reason why it should be banned. Animal testing has also proven to be largely ineffective and there are other good alternatives. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to draw your attention to this very important point: animal testing is not necessary. First of all, it has proven largely ineffective according to the 2012 resarch by Klein. Similarly, Landgren & Sardipy in their 2013 article prove that animal testing results have not proven to be effective in medical testing. Likewise, researchers Ferdowsian & Beck argue that
The use of animals is ineffective because diseases induced in animals in labs are not reliable. The matter is they are NOT the same as diseases that humans may concoct. With this in mind, wouldn’t it be better to consider other alternatives? Of course, it would! Scientists agree that other alternatives could potentially be better. On the one hand, human trials provide a more cost-effective and reliable means of testing. On the other hand, En vitro testing could be more effective and less costly.
Of course, there are some arguments to the contrary that must also be considered. Since animals are subordinate to humans, they are more widely available than humans for testing. From the pragmatic perspective, animals exist for the pleasure and utilization of human beings. Indeed, we have subordinated animals since times immemorial: we have eaten them, hunted them, and used them for our purposes of survival. Besides, for some people it is enough to know that humans occupy a higher place on the food chain. If to approach this question from the point of pragmatism, animals are more widely available for testing because human trials are difficult to pull off. It is obvious that there are few human beings who would like to undergo clinical trials. Besides, potential ethical issues exist when running trials on human beings
However, the pragmatic viewpoint is deficient and cannot outweigh the moral concern. The arguments for animal experimentation have not changed the fact that science, with its development, has shown the ability to come up with new, more effective ways of testing rather than utilizing animals in a cruel manner. Even though there may be some arguments to be made in favor of animal testing, the body of evidence suggests that the idea should be banned.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, I have clearly shown today that animal testing is cruel. And now you have also seen that it is not only cruel, but also ineffective. With the wealth of all these ideas out there, can we claim that there is any excuse for America continuing with this practice? Definitely, no! As a developed nation, it is time to move past animal testing and on to new, better methods.
- Curren, Rodger, and Brian Jones. “China is taking steps toward alternatives to animal testing.” Alternatives to laboratory animals: ATLA 40.1 (2012): 1.
- D’Silva, Joyce, and Jacky Turner, eds. Animals, ethics and trade: the challenge of animal sentience. Routledge, 2012.
- De Wever, Bart, et al. “Implementation challenges for designing Integrated In Vitro Testing Strategies (ITS) aiming at reducing and replacing animal experimentation.” Toxicology in vitro 26.3 (2012): 526-534.
- Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. “Ethical and scientific considerations regarding animal testing and research.” PloS one 6.9 (2011): e24059.
- Klein, Jennifer. “EU Cosmetics Directive and the Ban on the Animal Testing: Compliance, Challenges, and the GATT as a Potential Barrier to Animal Welfare.” (2012).
