In addition, the practice of testing cosmetics and other personal items on animals was accepted practice for many years. For example, countless rabbits were blinded to test the safety of mascaras and eye products (Carbone 24) before animal rights activists spoke up and asked the haunting question, "How many rabbits does Revlon blind for the sake of beauty?'" (Carbone 24). This use of animals for vanity seems unusually cruel and needless, and it seems there must be some other way to test new ideas, drugs, and treatments without wasting the lives of innocent animals.
Many scientists and health care professionals argue that medical research with animals is absolutely necessary to cure disease and make human life better and healthier. They maintain that animal research is absolutely necessary because in the end it saves human lives. Clearly, researchers have learned much from animal research, and have made great strides in science and medicine because of this research. DeGrazia notes "the advancement of basic biological knowledge -- proponents cite progress in the areas of Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, basic genetics, cancer, cardiovascular disease, haemophilia, malaria, organ transplantation, treatment of spinal cord injuries, and countless others" (DeGrazia 103). How many countless humans would have died from these diseases and afflictions if serious animal research had not been done?
This is one of the thorniest issues of the animal rights movement. When does the end justify the means? Often, as in the case of these serious diseases, it seems the end does justify the means. Numerous lives have been saved or made better because of the sacrifice of animals. However, the question remains. How much of this research could have been accomplished in some other way, without harming animals? As it has been shown, there are often other ways to accomplish even the most demanding research, and simply using animals may be the accepted practice because it has been done for so long, but it may not be the only way to accomplish complicated and necessary research.
Even those...
It seems there are two distinct areas where animal research is useful and justified. One is where the animal is not at all harmed by the experiments, and is not killed at the end of the research. The other is when the research is veterinary in nature, and is conducted to actually aid other animals of the same kind. For example, research is done on a cat with a disease to help save other cats with the same disease. These two uses of animals for research are more humane, and do not use the animal for anything other than benefiting other animals. This is a minimalist point-of-view, and most people that hold this view acknowledge that some animal testing is necessary, but it must be testing that achieves the greatest good for all with the least amount of harm to the animals. This kind of testing makes sense, and seems like more of a win-win situation for the animals and those who would benefit from the research.
In conclusion, it is clear that the use of animals for research is a highly controversial and emotional issue. Certainly, many human lives have been saved due to the use of animals in research. However, countless animals have also given their lives when there were other ways to accomplish the same goals. The use of animals in laboratories is often cruel and senseless, and animals should not be used for research - especially when there are viable alternatives. Humankind have managed so many great scientific feats, such as walking on the moon and visiting Mars and beyond with satellites and probes. Why is it that humankind cannot find a more humane way of testing for scientists and researchers? It is a question that will continue until animal testing and research stops altogether.
References
Carbone, Larry. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
DeGrazia, David. Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002.
