SHOULD ANIMAL TESTING BE LEGAL?

Nonhuman animal ("animal") experiments is typically explained by affirmations that it is

definitive, that animals focus on providing adequate models of anthropology and disease to

obtain necessary information, and that, subsequently, its use benefits human health significantly.

Animal testing disparity on a large assortment undermines science based evidence in favor of the

practice. Furthermore, this paper will show how, by conducting deceptive safety studies and

diverting resources away from more effective testing methods, animal testing frequently causes

significant harm to humans. It will argue that animal protection is concerned with human safety.

In addition, this paper will debate whether animal testing should be legalized.

Animals are used to generate medical interventions, test the toxic effects of treatments,

ensure protection of items deliberated for human consumption, and for a range of other

biomedical, advertisement, and health reasons. People have been studying about living creatures

since at least 500 BC. Animal testing supporters got into an argument that it has led to the

growth of many life-saving medications for animals, and humans as well, there is not any

alternate way to research an entire living organism, and that serious guidelines do prevent animal

mistreatment in research labs. Opponents of animal testing, on the other hand, argue that it is

cruel and barbaric to test on these innocent species, that other options present at the time to

researchers could take place to test animals, and that research on animals often capitulates

irrelevant results due to animals being distinguished from humans,1 even after a few similarities

between them.

THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF ANIMAL TESTING ON HUMANS AND

ANIMALS THEMSELVES
1
Animal Testing. “History of Animal Testing - ProCon.Org.” Accessed April 30, 2022. https://animal-
testing.procon.org/history-of-animal-testing/.
ANIMALS
Humans have fundamental rights that must not be violated, according to human rights theory. As

a result, "a human being is not supposed be sacrificed in order to benefit someone else from her

body parts, even if multitudes of other humans could advantage from her organs," according to

the inviolable rights viewpoint. She also cannot be subjected to medical testing without her

consent, no matter how much knowledge she would gain from doing so." This is also true for

animals. Since they can communicate with humans in the same way that humans communicate

with others, they should not be killed or experimented on for no reason. Nobody has the

authority to kill another human being or a species.

The great majority of animal tests inflict some degree of suffering and/or distress on the

animals. It is impossible to avoid the subjective view of "minor" to "mild" or "extreme" pain or

distress. Some criteria, including such altered heart rate and posture, are all in place to assist in

determining animal pain and distress. Furthermore, while experimentalists are proposed to utilize

anesthetics to relieve animal suffering, it is not really essential to do this as doing so would

impede with the reports of the experiment. In studies to experiment advanced medicines for

arthritis, for example, no analgesics were provided to a control group, while the other species

received relief unless the medication worked.2 Furthermore, animals in research labs are forced

to live in controlled environments for the rest of their lives, usually in windowless rooms.3

Captivity and common biomedicine laboratory aspects such as unnatural lighting, human-

generated excessive noise, and confined housing surroundings can stop species-typical behaviors

in animals, resulting into distress and abnormal behavior. Regular research procedures, like

2
Tuvel, Rebecca. "Against the use of knowledge gained from animal experimentation." Societies 5, no. 1
(2015): 220-244.
3

Animal Testing. “History of Animal Testing - ProCon.Org.”

capturing an animal and taking him or her out of the cage, causes significant and prolonged

elevations in the animals' oxidative stress, based on the experimental procedures. While

confinement, as it is currently recognized, is not inherently injurious to animals or humans,

Streiffer contends that a lot of research laboratory confinement environments are. Therefore,

while laboratories may help animals just like veterinary care, consistent meals, and safety from

external threats such as preys and inclement weather, laboratory confinement is also linked with

boredom, frustration, inaccessible conspecifics, and species-typical conduct. Several research

laboratories do not just imprison animals, but also administer almost all of their life choices,

including a particular time they should reproduce, what they can eat at what time, and with

whom they can live and interact. This also frustrates animals' interests in autonomy. 4 For

example, Mice were inherently modified in one study to establish aortic defects. However, when

the mice were captured in bigger cages, the deficiencies almost disappeared. Although laboratory

noise levels can destroy blood vessels in animals, and the type of flooring on which animals are

tested in spinal cord injury tests can influence the effectiveness of the drug.5 Although, effective

animal testing frequently advantages humans, the pain, suffering, and deaths of animals are

truthfully unworthy of the possible human advantage. In conclusion, it seems inhumane for

animals to be used for research or product testing.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN AND ANIMAL DISEASES

Animal models' inability to replicate complicated diseases limits their usefulness. The

absence of compatibility between animal and human studies diseases is yet a major hindrance to

transformational reliability. Even if the conceptualization and execution of an animal experiment

Ibid, 8.
5

See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008

are conceptualized and assimilated, the translation of the results to the health center may fail.

Replacing human diseases in animals also necessitates the replication of the predisposing

illnesses, which is a formidable task in and of itself.6 The inability to regenerate the disease in

animals in a way that it is similar to human stroke in relevant ways has increased the failure rate

of drug development. Above 114 prospective therapies which were first tested in animals

continued to fail in human trials. Other instances of failures based on animal models include

medicinal research in cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI),

Alzheimer's disease (AD), and dangerous conditions. Animal cancer models, in which tumors are

artificially induced, have been the primary translational prototype used to study key biochemical

and physiological properties in cancer onset and progression, as well as to evaluate novel

treatments. The models' capacity to faithfully imitate the intricate role of human carcinogenesis,

however, has significant limitations. Cancer drugs have a high clinical failure rate (amongst

highest of any disease category), highlighting these limitations. Assessments of familiar mouse

ALS models reveal substantial differences from human ALS. It is concerning that animal ALS

models have been unable to predict positive effects in ALS patients.7

So, what exactly qualifies as an assertion to inalienable rights? An animal rights theorists

stated this claim is supported by the ability to be aware of one's environment and encounter pain.

"Conscious beings are selves, in the sense that they have a distinct conscious encounters of their

own lives and the world." They are susceptible to "pain and pleasure, suffering and fulfilment, as

well as happiness, fear and death." According to this point of view, if a being is sentient, it has

certain essential interests that must be protected.8 Sentient beings hence deserve unalienable

AKHTAR, AYSHA. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.”

7

Ibid.
8
rights, such as the right not to be subjected to experiments against their will. How what about

life-saving biomedical research? Have the advantages to humans been great enough to exceed

the distress of animals' enthusiasm in these cases? Contrary, 95 percent of drugs discovered to be

safe and effective in nonhuman animal experiments are declined as injurious or useless while

clinical experimentations." The drug thalidomide, for example, despite having no adverse effects

on pregnant "dogs, cats, rats, chimpanzees, hamsters, and chickens," caused severe birth defects

in more than 10,000 human babies.9

Despite the growing recognition of animal experimentation's unreliability and limitations,

the larger community of the bio-chemical industry remains optimistic that they will achieve

more. This does not mean that animal experimentation have never been useful for humans.

Animal testing has undoubtedly aided in the development of numerous immunizations,

medicines, and other products that have profited humans immensely. By assuming that animals

are good models for humans, we risk not only incorrectly implying that some drug companies or

products are safe for human consumption, but we also risk missing out on drugs or products that

are dangerous to animals but secure for humans. Indeed, if animal tests were prohibited, we

could be able to devote more resources to developing alternatives. This increases the chances

that alternatives will produce benefits that are as good as, if not healthier than, those produced by

animal experimentation, thereby closing the bridge between those produced by animal testing

and those produced by alternatives.10

Ibid, 3.
9

Clowney, David, and Patricia Mosto, eds. Earthcare: An Anthology in Environmental Ethics. Rowman &
Littlefield, 2009.
10

Ibid, 11.
 In conclusion, resulting into the dismissal of functional medications, using an illegitimate

animal model specie may result into scientists and the industry being astray, wasting time and

money. The purpose of this paper was to demonstrate that animal testing is wrong and immoral

on both deontological and utilitarian grounds. There are multiple logics why animal testing is

erroneous, including the fact that living animals deserve irrevocable rights, protective measures

from aches, discomfort, and injurious laboratory imprisonment, as well as the fact that the

possible advantages to humans do not surpass the animals' interests in not suffering.
 Bibliography

See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008

AKHTAR, AYSHA. “The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation.”

Clowney, David, and Patricia Mosto, eds. Earthcare: An Anthology in Environmental Ethics.
Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.
Tuvel, Rebecca. "Against the use of knowledge gained from animal
experimentation." Societies 5, no. 1 (2015): 220-244.
Animal Testing. “History of Animal Testing - ProCon.Org.” Accessed April 30, 2022.
https://animal-testing.procon.org/history-of-animal-testing/.