Animal testing: cruel and inhuman

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Everyone knows about animal testing. It has been a debated topic for years. Some say that it has helped many. While this is true, it also hurts the animals in more ways than one. Plus, they do not reliably predict results in human beings. Others say that animals should not be experimented on.

    First of all, according to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, and food and water deprivation. Along with prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and even “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.” This means animals are put under intense conditions for human things like cosmetic products. Second of all, there are other alternative ways of testing products, such as in vitro testing. This can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. According to the Procon website “Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Both choices are more effective than animal testing.” Finally, these choices are more effective than animal testing because animals are very different from human beings and therefore make poor test subjects. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University, states that “It’s very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human.” This means animals are too different from humans to make acceptable test subjects. Also, drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. According to the Procon website, “The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses.¨ Another drug that was tested was the arthritis drug Vioxx. This test showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market.

    In conclusion, animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. According to neurologist Aysha Akhtar, over 100 stroke drugs that were effective when tested on animals have failed in humans after working well in non-human primates. As caring human beings, you can put a stop to this cruelty. You can take a stand against animal testing.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email