Jordan 1
Jamie Jordan
Prof. Adam D. Hoffman
ENG 101
18 May 2019
Animal Experimentation: An Unnecessary and Unethical Procedure
Animal testing happens all over the United States and is required when developing new
products for human use and consumption. Sadly, animals are the victims of product
development—they suffer greatly and die in vast numbers: “[over] 100 million animals are killed
due to animal testing each year” (PETA). Most of the animals used in testing are mammals with
comparable anatomy to humans, the only difference is they are unable to adequately
communicate how they feel or to fight what is happening to them. Animal testing is unjust
especially in cases where they are killed or tortured without a medically necessary need, like
cosmetics or artificial intelligence. Most tests conducted upon animals are to verify if a product
is ready for human use, but if there was a label on each product that described how they
researched the product, then businesses would lose customers because no one would agree that
product was worth the torture required to develop it. Despite human advancement in technology
and the ability to replicate body parts and organs, somehow we still need to test products on
animals? Animal testing is unnecessary and unethical because there are more effective, less
torturous, less expensive ways to determine the same conclusions in the research lab.
There are many scientific methods like in vitro cell cultures for conducting experiments
other than the use of animals. In the Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal by Sonali K. Doke and
Shashikant C. Dhawale, they explain how “in many countries, in vitro cell cultures have replaced
the skin irritancy test and Draize eye irritancy test and use of animals in those”. These in vitro
Jordan 2
cultures take the place of the animals and at a lower cost too. This is a step in the right direction,
using bacteria instead of a living animal is more humane and cannot cost the animals their lives
if they aren’t being used in the experiments. Also, from Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal they
explain how instead of extracting insulin from the pancreas of pigs and cows, we obtain it from
the bacterial cultures which are lifeline drugs for diabetic patients, (Doke 2015). This is an
exceptional way of extracting insulin because using the bacteria instead of animals is not just
humane but cheaper than when the extraction comes from an animal’s pancreas. This is an
example of a step in the right direction, using technology to benefit humanity but also saving the
lives of innocent animals. This research shows that there are alternate methods to complete the
research without putting an animals’ life at risk.
Regardless of human intent, animal testing is almost always torturous to animals which
makes it unethical. Torturing animals isn’t humane, especially when its in the name of new
product development. For example, scientists feed animals vast quantities, that humans would
never eat just to see what happens to the animals: “toothpaste companies make animals eat their
products to see after the consumption of how many toothpastes the animal dies” (Gandhi 2018).
Just hearing this is upsetting, there isn’t a point in testing how much toothpaste an animal can
consume before they pass away. FirstPost states that “the animal testing and experimentation
industry are everywhere. It is secretive, pervasive and profitable,” and that “most of you don’t
even know that the products you buy have so much suffering in them,” (Gandhi 2018). There
should be laws that say the product has to write how the item was tested so everyone knows just
like an ingredient label. There should be more of an opinion on animal lives and laws so that
they get the protection that they need, from corporations that just use them as test subjects.
Jordan 3
Experimentations on animals cost them their lives. Humanity should test their own products if
they really find a need for some of the types of research that is out there.
Furthermore, research on animals is often more expensive then other alternatives. There
is the purchase cost of the animal since not everything is free, the housing/caging of the animal,
having to keep the animal alive for the tests, and not to mention the time it takes to receive
results from the tests which can take years at a time. Some might say that the results are greater
then the costs, but when you are able to create a more controlled group with bacteria like with
“in vitro” (Doke 2015) and the experiment costs less, then there isn’t a point in going through the
hassle of dealing with live animals that need attention and to be cared for until the research is
complete. Even with our advancements in technology CBS News reports that “the use of animal
experiments at leading federally-funded labs has increased nearly 73 percent in the past 15
years” (Casey 2015). This is sickening and just goes to show that no matter the cost, animals will
still be the test subjects in the end. Therefore, we need to get laws past in favor of the animals
and how the experiments are bad for the world.
With the advancements in technology currently, there is no need for so many animal
experimentations, there should not be an increase with using animals but a decrease to try and
save/rescue them from going through the torture of being guinea pigs for experiments that are
unnecessary. There is a business with the experimentation on animals especially for the breeders
who sell the test subjects to the companies using them. Animals are alive and conscious when
tests are preformed, and some tests are torturous to go through especially when after the
experiment is performed they are either returned to their small cage or maybe even disposed of.
Some might say that animal tests are necessary in certain categories of testing which might be
true, but there are better research options for the bigger sections of experiments. There is also a
Jordan 4
big cost that goes a long with animal testing which also includes time, these can be avoided with
another research option which costs less but also takes less time for the experiment to be
completed. In conclusion, animal experimentation is unnecessary with the deaths it brings, the
costs it creates, and the other experimentation options that are out there to improve the quality of
the research performed.
Jordan 5
Works cited
Aubrey, Allison. “Outrage Over Government's Animal Experiments Leads To USDA
Review.” NPR, NPR, 6 Feb. 2015,
www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/02/06/384103870/outrage-over-governments-animal-
experiments-leads-to-usda-review.
Casey, Michael. “Animal Experimentation up 73 Percent, Study Says.” CBS News, CBS
Interactive, 26 Feb. 2015, www.cbsnews.com/news/peta-study-finds-animal-testing-in-
federal-labs-on-the-increase/.
Cork, Linda C., et al. “The Costs of Animal Research: Origins and Options.” Science, vol. 276,
no. 5313, 1997, pp. 758–759. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2892332.
Doke, Sonali, and Shashikant Dhawale. “Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Review.” Saudi
Pharmaceutical Journal, Elsevier, 18 Nov. 2013,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096?via=ihub.
“Experiments on Animals: Overview.” PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-
experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/.
Gruber, and Hartung. “FFVFF, CH-Zuerich. Fpg@Ffvff.ch.” ALTEX, 1 Jan. 1970,
europepmc.org/abstract/med/15586255.
Gandhi, Maneka. “Animal Testing Is Costly and Inefficient; Investment in More Humane
Science May Yield Better Solutions.” Firstpost, 23 Apr. 2018,
www.firstpost.com/india/animal-testing-is-costly-and-inefficient-investment-in-more-
humane-science-may-yield-better-solutions-4442965.html.
Marks, Joel. “Accept No Substitutes: The Ethics of Alternatives.” The Hastings Center Report,
vol. 42, no. 6, 2012, pp. S16–S18. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44159180.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
