You are on page 1of 4

Savannah Jenkins

3/20/2016
Richard MWF 8:00
Your baby was just diagnosed with whooping cough, her pitiful coughs unnatural
coming from her tiny body. Of course, its curable, but the only problem is that the cure
was made from animal experimentation. Is this really a problem though? No, because
you would take any form of cure just to stop this disease. People say that they are
against animal experimentation. For all the right reasons too, but it changes when a
loved one is diagnosed with diabetes, cancer, or the whooping cough. Without the
necessary tests, we would never have been able to give so many people another
chance at life. Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, are procedures
that are used on animals for research. They are tested for reactions against certain
diseases, antibiotics, cosmetics, and vaccinations. By researching and testing on these
animals we are able to obtain better knowledge and confirm whether something is
harmful to us. For example, We have vaccinations for tetanus because of animal
testing, there are several ethical complications however.
There are extremely sick people in the world, without animal testing patients
would have no chance. Eighty per cent of the children with acute lymphocytic leukemia
now have a fighting chance at life, thanks to CML, an effective, newly developed drug.
(Foundation for Biomed 4). This drug was obtained because of animal testing, like many
others in the world. Animal experimentation has contributed to the whole world, it
increased the lifespan of humans, but it has also, given animals that are infected with a
disease or born prematurely, a fighting chance at life. The role in animal
experimentation is immense, Animal research was essential for the development of
Herceptin and Tamoxifen, two medicines that have saved the lives of thousands of

Savannah Jenkins
3/20/2016
Richard MWF 8:00
women and men with breast cancer.(Amprogress) If we were to eliminate these
procedures, we would have a slower research rate and more deaths because people
would be waiting on antibiotics and cures.
There is a moral and ethical conflict surrounding the procedures of animal
testing. Some say that animals are put through questionable circumstances and they
suffer. The alternative to that would be to have volunteers or testing on criminals. The
only problem with that is a man named Darrel Wayne Hodgkins was sentenced to death
in 2013 and then released in 2015. The fact that this even happens should be reason
enough to not test on people on death row and it would be considered cruel and
unusual punishment. Volunteering would be a good idea, if there were more of them.
This is also contradicting because they could be punishing themselves and its costly.
Many religious people say that it is a sin, but according to this verse Genesis 1:26: "And
God said... let them [human beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth. As long there is no unnecessary pain to the
animals, it does not go against the beliefs of Christians and many other religions.
Animals are also put in controlled environments are taken care of.
There is an argument that there are alternatives to animal experimentation such
as in vitro testing, which is testing via test tube using skin cells or the like, and that
animals are poor substitutes for humans.I would say the real benefit of the model is
that it can do a preliminary filter of your compounds, and that can replace some of the
very early stages in animal experimentation. says professor Denis Noble. This shows
progress, but not a complete replacement. Mice DNA, the most commonly used animal

Savannah Jenkins
3/20/2016
Richard MWF 8:00
for testing, is actually 97.5% similar to human DNA. In the first stages of biomedical
research, in vitro testing and the alternatives are used, but when they reach a point
where they cannot substitute a living organism, they use animals. Alternatives exist,
they just cant replace animal testing completely.
There are multiple conflicts surrounding animal experimentation, but the pros
outweigh the cons. Technology is growing fast, but to revert to an inefficient way would
put us all at risk and lose valuable research.

Work cited

Savannah Jenkins
3/20/2016
Richard MWF 8:00
"Achievements of Chemical Research." Bmj 1.4455 (1946): 807. Ca-biomed.

FOUNDATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. Web. 21 Feb. 2016.

"Animal Research Benefits:." Animal Research Benefits:. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

"Animal Testing - ProCon.org." ProConorg Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.

Ericson, John. "The Price of Killing off Animal Testing." Newsweek. John Ericson, 20
Feb. 2014. Web. 17 Feb. 2016.
"Case Studies: The Three R's." BBC News. BBC, 24 July 2006. Web. 19 Feb. 2016.

You might also like