Why Animal Testing Should Be Prohibited - Essay Example

Animal testing should be prohibited Introduction The major difference between humans and animals is the level of intelligence, which in turn creates the self-awareness abilities in humans, which are missing in animals. However, the abilities to feel pain are the same for both humans and animals. In this respect, animals’ pain should not be disregarded purely on the basis that they are not self-aware, so that they can be subjected to tests and experiments that are not normally subjected to humans (Fano, 189). Nevertheless, how would the treatment for various diseases be discovered should the animal testing be completely abolished? What would be the basis of selecting the humans that would be subjected to testing for the sake of developing treatments and curing procedures for the rest of humans? The difficulty in answering these questions, most especially the one relating to the procedures which would be used to select some humans to be subjected to testing so they can help develop cures for different diseases, underlines the magnitude of the complexity and controversy surrounding animal testing (Reinhardt, 10). Historically, animals have been subjected to different laboratory testing and experiments, which have in turn helped develop various medication procedures and medicines that cure human diseases to present day. For this reason, animal testing remains the core of medicine and other important human-oriented disciplines such as psychology (Hansen, 69). Thus, despite the fact that animals should not be subjected to painful and potentially lethal experiments for the sake helping develop cures and medical procedures that would save human life, their relevance in this aspect cannot be overemphasized. Nevertheless, while life is treated as precious, both for animals and humans, it is evident that none should be denied the right to live a life free of pain and suffering. Accordingly, animal testing should be prohibited. Discussion Animal testing should be prohibited because with the technological development and human intelligence advancement both in the field of medicine, psychology and other useful social sciences, it is now possible to apply computer modeling as well as low concentration testing on humans without causing reasonable harm (Garner, 128). This would be highly beneficial, since it would save more animal lives. For example, in the USA alone, over 2 million animals are subjected to medical testing and other form of laboratory experimentation every year (PETA.org, n.p.). The problem is that 94% of drug tests that would have proven successful in animals end up failing when they are subjected to humans (Magee, 2).The fact that animals have remained the basis of obtaining useful cures and medication procedures throughout the human history should not be construed to mean that the same should continue even in present day. The justification for the application for animals in medical, psychological and other form of testing was the fact that they were the only suitable specimens at the time when there did not exist both technological and intelligence advancements that would create more feasible alternatives for testing the medical procedures and medicinal products (Fano, 190). Thus, it would be unethical and insensitive of humans to continue subjecting animals through the potentially lethal testing procedures, even when there are more viable alternatives that can help in testing the procedures and the products meant for different curative measures. In this respect, it is time to alleviate the animal suffering caused by animal testing, through the application of different alternatives that would see animals set free from the pain and other form of physical and psychological suffering they are subjected to, during animal testing. Statistics have indicated that the development of a single useful pesticide requires under taking of more than 50 experiments, which would use over 12,000 animals overall before eventually concluding the usefulness of a pesticide for human application (Magee, 1). The process of conducting 50 experiments while using over 12,000 animals will definitely take valuable time and financial resources, which would turn out to be too detrimental, if such research eventually becomes less useful or fails to give the desired results. Thus these problems can easily be overcome through the use of advanced technology to test the medical or pesticide concentrates on laboratory developed cells, tissue or organs. The cost of undertaking a DNA testing in animals is $32,000, which is three times higher compared to the DNA testing using the in vitro technologies alternative, which costs an average of $11,000,yet gives similar and quick results than the animal testing procedures (PETA.org, n.p.). This would consume less time, while at the same time ensuring to give more reliable results that would not have caused harm to such a large number of animals. The cell multiplication technologies currently available can be applied to replicate the cells of a single animal into millions of cells, which would be easily subjected to tests within the laboratories (Hackam, 31). This will have effectively saved millions of animals’ lives, as well as millions of money and also more labor hours that could be applied productively. The defenders of the use of animal testing for the creation of different medical procedures and medical products have defended the practice, based on the fact that animals too have benefitted from treatment and medications that have been developed through animal testing (Reinhardt, 12). While this observation is true, there has not been any incidence in the history of the world where a test has been undertaken on animals for the sake of benefitting the animals. In this respect, if life is something that needs to be valued, regardless of whether it is animal or human life, then both animals and humans ought to have the right and equal chances to benefit from the testing done on either of the species (Newton, 72). Therefore, the mere subjection of animals to testing for the reason that they lack the intelligence and the self-awareness capacity of humans does not negate the fact that they too have a precious life that ought to be treated as so. If fairness is to be applied, the human life should not be considered more precious than that of the animals, such that the animals cannot enjoy the right to life as does humans. The animals that are subjected to medical testing and other laboratory experimentation ends up losing their lives, since such animals must be killed and destroyed after the medical or other laboratory experiments are subjected to them (Hackam, 32). Thus, defending the right to subjecting animals to animal testing is equated to defending the right to taking away the right for the animals to live, which in itself is an unjustified action on the part of humans. Further, the physiology and cell-structure of animals is quite different from that of humans owing to the fact that they are totally different species (Hansen, 72). Therefore, there is absolutely no guarantee that a medical or other laboratory experiment that has been undertaken successfully on animals will have the same effect when it comes to humans. According to The Food and Drug Administration report, 92% of all successful experimentation on different animals ends up failing on humans (PETA.org, n.p.). This glaring statistics serves to show that it is only 8% of all testing that is done on animals that eventually emerges as beneficial for humans. This means that millions of animals must endure the pain, suffering and even loss of life associated with animal testing, before reasonable medical procedures and curing products can be developed to benefit humans in different aspects of life (Newton, 77). The logic behind killing millions of animals when there is absolutely no guarantee that their loss of life would develop something beneficial for humans is lacking. Additionally, owing to the differences in the physiology and the cell structure of animals, it would only be fair to test the medicines and other procedures on humans, since the level of accuracy attainable from undertaking the tests directly on humans would be much higher (Garner, 130). Despite the fact that the use of animal testing is applied as a safeguard before the same products or procedures can be done on humans, it is still pointless to conduct a medical procedure on animals that would eventually fail on humans, thus also using the humans as a testing specimen. If humans will eventually end up as testing specimens after the same has been done on animals, then it is only fair that the medical and other laboratory testing subjected on animals be done primarily on humans. The law has provided different safeguards that prohibit the mistreatment of animals whether at homes, in the laboratories or even while they are in their natural habitats (Hansen, 75). The essence of the establishment of such laws is to ensure that animals are safeguarded from being subjected to painful and other physical suffering by humans. Thus, if the law could go all the way to establish safeguards that alleviate different forms of animal suffering that might be caused by their interactions with humans, it is logical that animal life is considered equally important. However, there is no need for laws that safeguard animals from being subjected to different forms of mistreatment by humans, if the animals can also be subjected to even worse treatment in the laboratories and other medical experimentation facilities. The medical, psychological or other forms of testing on animals entail placing the animals in an environment where the animals are psychologically stressed, physically harmed through product application and also eventually killed (Hackam, 31). These forms of suffering are worse than the thrashing and whipping that the animals would receive from domestic mistreatment by humans, and equally bad than poaching and illegal hunting that eventually leaves the animals dead. Thus, the same logic and reasoning that was applied to develop laws that would protect animals from different forms of mistreatment by humans should be the same logic and reasoning that should be applied to defend the animals against the suffering they experience through animal testing (Fano, 197). For this reason, animal testing should be legally banned, and in its place other less harmful measures established that will perpetuate the human benefit attainable from the animal testing, especially through technology utilization. Animal testing should be prohibited because it is wasteful both in terms of time and resource utilization (Hansen, 73). The development of any reasonable cure or medication through animal testing consumes a lot of time, effort and resources, while still subjecting many animals to the testing process. In the United States alone, over 2 million animals are subjected to different medical and laboratory testing annually, while a cost of $136 million is incurred in the process of these testing procedures (PETA.org, n.p.). This serves to indicate that numerous resources are utilized in the animal testing procedures and valuable time consumed, only to have 92% of such experiments becomes wasteful. The resources committed in these experiments both in terms of time and money could have been more effectively applied, if the testing was subjected to technological alternatives as well as to low concentration testing on humans (Newton, 77). This is because, the human response would be more accurate thus avoid the time and resources consumed in subjecting more animals and time to verify the results of an initial testing before it is administered on humans (Garner, 27). On the other hand, the application of different medical technologies such as the technologies that grow secondary human cells and tissues that can eventually be subjected to the experimentation, would save a great deal of financial and time resources. Such tests are efficient and les time consuming. Conclusion Animal testing has been applied productively throughout the human history, in order to develop different medication and treatment procedure for humans. While this is a noble outcome of animal testing, many animals have suffered and others lost their lives in the process, with over 2 million animals being subjected to animal testing every year in the USA alone. The time and financial costs involved in animal testing are also huge, yet there are cheap technological alternatives which may give similar results while utilizing less time and resources. Due to the fact that all life is precious, whether animal or human life, there is a need to abolish animal testing. In its place, different alternatives that are time and financially cheaper, yet not costly in terms of lives lost and suffering endured by the animals can be adapted. Works Cited Fano, Alix. Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health, and Environmental Policy. Zed Books, 1997. 189-236. Print. Garner, Robert. Animals, Politics, and Morality. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1993. 128-149. Print. Hackam, Daniel G. and Redelmeier, Donald A. ‘Translation of Research Evidence from Animals to Human,” The Journal of the American Medical Association 296 (2006): 31-32. Hansen, Lawrence A. “Analysis of Animal Research Ethics Committee Membership at American Institutions,” Animals 2 (2012): 68-75. Magee, Chris. “Statistics on animals used for research in 2012”. Understanding Animal research Journal, 1-2. Print. Available at: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/files/5514/1041/1567/statistics-on-animal.pdf Newton, David E. The Animal Experimentation Debate: A Reference Handbook. , 2013. 72-109. Print. PETA.org. “Animal Experiments: Overview”. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Available at: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/ Reinhardt, Christoph A. Alternatives to Animal Testing: New Ways in the Biomedical Sciences, Trends and Progress. Weinheim: VCH, 1994. 10-68. Print. Read More