Cosmetic Testing In Animals - Essay Example

Do you or Do you not approve of Cosmetic Testing In Animals? Aside from prolonging human life, today’s technologies include making people look better in the eyes of others with the help of cosmetics. There are also some people in this world who would show off their vanity to the world by enhancing their looks with cosmetics. This is what they usually term as “make over”. But behind this “make over”, many people are unaware that these cosmetics, prior to their release in the market and application to humans, have already been tested on animals first.

This would mean that animal lives may have been sacrificed first before achieving success. In some point in time, this has outraged vigilant groups advocating “Stop Cruelty to Animals”. These groups have marched their way to request the banning of this practice in aid of legislation from government. Now, the stance whether or not, one is in favor of using animals in cosmetic testing or in any other lab experiments still remains a subject of debate. Looking back in time, medical and scientific researches have highlighted their major breakthroughs that saved human lives.

The more popular scientific breakthroughs referring to the same, include: “1950’s – kidney transplant, replacement of heart valves, polio vaccine, hip replacement surgery: 1960’s – heart bypass, drugs to treat mental illness; 1970’s – drugs to treat stomach ulcers, asthma and leukemia; 1980’s- drugs to control transplant rejection, life support systems for premature babies and 1990’s- cloning of Dolly” (Thomassen, et.al., n.d.) . These cited medical discoveries are the same strong justifications raised by those who argue in favor of the use of animals in lab tests.

As an advocate of “Pro-Life” I will definitely continue not to favor the testing of cosmetic products in animals for that matter on the following grounds: For one, “even without vivisection, medical research will still continue its efforts to explore knowledge. Second, there are discovered cures of highly contagious diseases that have not undergone vivisection” (Lin, G., n.d.). Third, physiologically and biologically, animals are much different from humans. “Any differences between animals and humans are generally known, and can be factored in to experiments.

However, it was cited that “82% of the general practitioners are concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans” (Thomassen, et.al., n.d.) “Animals are often poor substitutes for humans, and some compounds that may well cause no harm to an animal could seriously harm a human being. It simply means that a drug that is toxic to the animal it is tested on may have no toxicity, but may have adverse effects on humans, if applied.” …[“HIV drugs, vaccines and animal testing”].

Finally, with all the advancement in technology, other alternatives replacing animal testing have now been discovered. These new methods include the use of cell cultures and imaging (Thomassen, et.al., n.d.). Be as it may, if humans have a right to live then animals do too. Therefore, if there is a strong, definite “will” to give this right to animals, then humans can always find a “way” to grant this right to animals no matter what it takes. REFERENCES Lin, Doris. “Why It’s Wrong to Test on Animals?

Vivisection and Animal Rights” About.com. Guide. n.d. Web. Feb. 06, 2011. Thomassen, Marte., Trolid, Ellen. Arondsen, Tonjen and Gystol, Marit. “Medical Testing in Research: Past, Present and Future”. n.d., ZO-8091 Forsoksdyrl?re. 1-14. NTNU – Norges Teknisk- Naturvitenskapelige Universitet. PDF file. “HIV drugs, vaccines and animal testing” avert.org., International HIV and Aids Charity. n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2011