All around the world, medical labs exist that use harmless animals as their test subjects. There have always been and always will be people that support animal use in scientific research, and also people that don’t support the use of animals for research. The use of animals in scientific research is to create a parallel to the human body. Scientists proclaim that the animal body is close enough in replica to the human body, that they can perform controlled tests and get results that will benefit human beings. Animals are constantly enduring tests such as eye irritancy, acute toxicity, skin sensitization, dermal penetrations, carcinogenicity, etc (AAVS 2014). Simon Festing, who is the Executive Director at the Research Defense Society in London, UK and Robin Wilkinson, the Science Communications Officer at the same institute, are the authors of The Ethics of Animal Research. In their publication, they state that, “opponents to any kind of animal research, including both animal rights extremists and anti-vivisectionist groups, believe that animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary, regardless of its purpose or benefit” (Festing and Wilkinson 1). The use of animals for cosmetic testing and also human disease testing has led to millions of animal deaths a year. Many studies have been done that have proved the significant point that there is no connection between the human diseases scientists in laboratories inject animals with and the actual diseases humans encounter. One particular study that tested the drugs Milrinone and Fialuridine found the results did not have the same effect on humans that they did on animals. The study said that, “Milrinone increased survival of rats with artificially induced heart failure, but humans taking this drug experienced a 30% increase in mortality. Fialuridine appeared safe in animal tests, but it caused liver failure in 7 out of 15 humans taking the drug…” (Anderegg 11).
Animals are forced to endure unnecessary pain such as the inhalation of toxic fumes, having their skin burned off, and having their bones drilled into or crushed. With all of these painful experiments the animals go through in the attempt to cure a human disease, the link to connect the disease to humans has not been found. Humans develop a certain disease in their body differently than the artificial disease develops in the animal’s body (Collins). Diane Beers, who is the author of “For The Prevention of Cruelty”, points out that, “Vivisection has opened more wounds than those on the operating table” (Beers 122).
All testing on animals, whether it is for cosmetics or disease, should be banned. Animals that are forced to endure the torture that comes from cosmetic testing need to be saved. There is no gain from testing makeup on an animal. Human’s skewed idea that they need to wear makeup to make them look better is unnecessary. During the same interview with Libby from AWL, she was asked what she thought about the use of animals for scientific research. As she assessed this question, I noticed her staring at my face, almost like she was studying it. She then proceeded to say, “I just wanted to make sure you didn’t paint your eyes before I answer this question so I don’t offend you.” As Libby clearly noticed, I was makeup free and ready to listen to her response, which was, “society has developed so much that there should be no need to use animals still for their research. Don’t make the animals suffer when you have better scientific ways to test your experiments.” Libby was so definite in each of her responses with no hesitation to what she believed in. She has so much love and compassion for every animal she meets and even ones she has yet to meet. Animals are her life and she is completely happy with the life she is living.
Following up on Libby’s response, there are many other ways to test scientific experiments without the use of animals. In the article “Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On,” written by PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals), they state that, “Human clinical and epidemiological studies, studies on cadavers, and computer simulations are fast, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests” (PETA 2014). With all of the recent development in the science world, laboratories have produced pseudo skin cells, brains, bone marrow, etc. These developments resemble very closely to actual human body parts and are able to be tested on and produce significant and useful results (PETA 2014). With this knowledge of the human body and the benefit scientists have with these other various methods, there is no reason as to why scientists are still using animals for scientific research.
Animals are forced to endure unnecessary pain such as the inhalation of toxic fumes, having their skin burned off, and having their bones drilled into or crushed. With all of these painful experiments the animals go through in the attempt to cure a human disease, the link to connect the disease to humans has not been found. Humans develop a certain disease in their body differently than the artificial disease develops in the animal’s body (Collins). Diane Beers, who is the author of “For The Prevention of Cruelty”, points out that, “Vivisection has opened more wounds than those on the operating table” (Beers 122).
All testing on animals, whether it is for cosmetics or disease, should be banned. Animals that are forced to endure the torture that comes from cosmetic testing need to be saved. There is no gain from testing makeup on an animal. Human’s skewed idea that they need to wear makeup to make them look better is unnecessary. During the same interview with Libby from AWL, she was asked what she thought about the use of animals for scientific research. As she assessed this question, I noticed her staring at my face, almost like she was studying it. She then proceeded to say, “I just wanted to make sure you didn’t paint your eyes before I answer this question so I don’t offend you.” As Libby clearly noticed, I was makeup free and ready to listen to her response, which was, “society has developed so much that there should be no need to use animals still for their research. Don’t make the animals suffer when you have better scientific ways to test your experiments.” Libby was so definite in each of her responses with no hesitation to what she believed in. She has so much love and compassion for every animal she meets and even ones she has yet to meet. Animals are her life and she is completely happy with the life she is living.
Following up on Libby’s response, there are many other ways to test scientific experiments without the use of animals. In the article “Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On,” written by PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals), they state that, “Human clinical and epidemiological studies, studies on cadavers, and computer simulations are fast, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests” (PETA 2014). With all of the recent development in the science world, laboratories have produced pseudo skin cells, brains, bone marrow, etc. These developments resemble very closely to actual human body parts and are able to be tested on and produce significant and useful results (PETA 2014). With this knowledge of the human body and the benefit scientists have with these other various methods, there is no reason as to why scientists are still using animals for scientific research.