Animal Testing. The Writer Argues That Animal

¶ … animal testing. The writer argues that animal testing is a necessity and that alternative testing is not as effective. There were four sources used to complete this paper.

Throughout the years there have been many groups who have protested using animals for the purpose of testing products. These products include medical products, consumer products and research for cures and discoveries about illnesses and disorders. The groups who protest the use of animals say that it is cruel to use them for the tests when alternative methods could be found. While alternative methods have been developed for many types of testing the use of animals for testing must still be embraced. Alternative testing methods have not proven themselves to be as reliable as animal testing.

Those who oppose animal testing believe that it is inhumane treatment of living things. Over the years there have been hotly debated arguments over the use of animal testing as well as sits ins, protests and other types of demonstrations regarding the practice (Ahmad, 1999). There are some who disagree with the use of animal testing in the cosmetic industry while agreeing that the medical field needs toe green light to use animals in its research. Then there are those who completely protest any animal testing at all even in the face of curing diseases (Policy, 2001).

People who use animals to conduct research say that they have no ill feelings towards the animals and they try and conduct the research in such a manner that it will be as comfortable for the animal as possible while still obtaining the answers that they need from the research (Wereschagin, 2000). There is a group called FACTS, which attempts to correct any misconception about the facts in animal research that are being promoted. In addition there are strict federal regulations about animal research and how it is conducted; what it can be used for and what it cannot be used for. It is called the Federal Animal Welfare Act and has been in existence since 1966. Since its inception it has been amended four times to further protect the animals in question (Wereschagin, 2000). "The act regulates "the care and treatment of most warm-blooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited in public," according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Web site. It requires animal researchers to meet certain standards with animal testing as well as having all research labs subject to surprise inspections (Wereschagin, 2000)." The places where the animals are kept must be cleaned and they cannot distress or cause stress to the animal if the animal has to be transported (Wereschagin, 2000). While these measures are taken to insure that the animals are treated as well as possible given the circumstances activist groups are still attacking the animal testing. Animal testing needs to be continued because anything short of animal testing is less effective in is use and its function (Wereschagin, 2000).

Many of the tests and research methods involved do cause distress to the animals used for testing (Philips, 1998). In one instance there were hundreds of rabbits that had irritants dropped into their eyes to study different need medications for treatment (Philips, 1998). This allows many humans to have their eyesight saved before they go blind and the nation has to ask itself if it was worth the cause the rabbits endured (Philips, 1998). The answer is yes (Philips, 1998). If testing medical products on animals can save humans then animal testing must be preserved and maintained.

There are 2.7 million animals used in laboratory work every year in the UK. In the U.S., more than five million animals die each year as a result of so-called "lethal dose" tests (Philips, 1998). Their deaths are not accidental. The lethal dose procedure was devised to determine what amount of a substance would kill a given percentage of a sample of animals (Philips, 1998). Thus the test which has been used for most of this century, the LD50, or lethal dose 50, simply continues feeding poison to animals until 50 per cent die. And, sadly, the animals do not simply lie down and pass quietly away (Philips, 1998). They die painfully and distressingly (Philips, 1998). " But if the alternative is going to be that humans suffer and die because the treatment cannot be tried on an animal the price becomes to high (Philips, 1998).

Activists will argue that the testing of cosmetics on animals is not going to save lives and therefore should be halted but they are wrong. Each year thousands of victims are severely disfigured because of fires, surgeries, chemical burns or other problems (Philips, 1998). They hide away in their homes afraid to let the world see their faces. They cannot work, they withdraw socially and they stop being productive contributors to society (Philips, 1998). When cosmetics can cover their scars and allow them to venture out again it is a positive aspect of cosmetics that is much more than vanity. If animal testing allows the reentry of the scarred victims to the world then animal testing is needed.

Scientists who are working in medical research are at the centre of the controversy (Philips, 1998). Ironically, it is the men and women who turn down lucrative approaches from drugs companies on the grounds that they do not want their research compromised who often become the objects of attack by the wilder fringes of the animal welfare movement (Philips, 1998). Their argument is that if they could find easier, quicker ways of saving human beings from the effects of disease, ageing or contagion, they would do so. But which of us, told that our son or daughter has been diagnosed with cancer, would say "save the bunny rabbit, sod the child" (Philips, 1998)?