Is animal testing justified for scientific purposes?
The topic of using and testing animals for scientific research has been a
very controversial subject for decades. Animal testing has contributed to
medical science advancements countless times. From vaccines, surgical
techniques, to improving human health, it is safe to say that animal testing
has saved numerous lives. But do all of these advancements justify the
countless amount of animals that have suffered and lost their lives? This
essay argues that animal testing is justifiable because of the many uses
and benefits that it provides.
Firstly, animals are essential for medical breakthroughs. They have led to
many treatments such as chemotherapy, vaccines, and antibiotics. For
example, if it weren’t for animals, the COVID-19 vaccine would most likely
not have existed, and a lot more lives could have been lost. Another
example is diabetes; scientists used dogs and mice which led to the
discovery of insulin, which helped understand diabetes and other diseases
more. According to the American Association for Laboratory Animal
Science, animal testing has been crucial in understanding how diseases
progress in biological systems. This is a process that is not replicable in
any sort of alternate methods, such as computer models. By testing on
animals first, researchers can also identify potential dangers and side
effects, so that human trials are safer. Animals (mostly mammals), are also
biologically close to humans, which makes testing animals the best and
most accurate option.
Additionally, animal models are very cost-efficient and accessible,
especially rodents. This allows for more sample sizes, which is useful
because with more test subjects, scientists can get more accurate results,
have more controlled experiments, and detect anomalies. Ironically, testing
on animals has also contributed to more advanced veterinary medicines.
However, a lot of people argue that animal testing is unnecessary because
of other alternative methods. While these methods are valuable, they
cannot accurately replicate the biology of a living organism. For certain
fields like neuroscience, they completely rely on animal testing to study
interactions that are impossible to replicate in an artificial environment, at
least for our current technology and also for the next (minimum) 10,000
years. Critics also argue that animal testing is very cruel. But in reality, it is
just a part of nature. We are at the top of the food chain, and we need to
make sacrifices to survive. Regulations such as the Animal Welfare Act,
also say that scientists use alternatives whenever possible and minimize
animal suffering by using the fewest number of animals possible, and using
specific methods that reduce pain.
In conclusion, animal testing is necessary for all the contributions that it
provides towards making medicines and treatments. As long as strict rules
are followed to minimize suffering, animal testing is justified for further
advancements in the medical field. Although there are alternatives, they are
not accurate nor efficient enough to replace animal testing.
