Is Animal Testing Okay?


via Pixabay

A mouse being experimented on

        Using animals in research and assessing the safety of products has been a source of passionate discussion for decades. Biomedical research and product safety testing account for 60% of all animals utilized in testing. Animals evoke many emotions in people; some see them as companions, while others see them as a tool for improving medical skills or expanding 1experimental study.

     First, when animals are utilized in research, their rights are infringed. “Animals have a basic moral entitlement to respectful treatment,” says Tom Regan, a North Carolina State University philosophy professor. “This inherent value is not recognized when animals are reduced to mere tools in a scientific experiment.” In many ways, animals and humans are similar; they both feel, think, behave, and suffer pain. As a result, animals and people should be treated equally. However, when animals are taken advantage of in research, their rights are infringed because they are not given a choice. Animals are frequently exposed to painful experiments that cause permanent harm, or result in death and are never offered the choice of opting out of the experiment.

     Next, the agony and suffering that experimental animals go through is not worth any potential human advantages. The American Veterinary Medical Association defines animal pain as “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience originating from a specific region of the body and associated with actual or potential tissue damage.” Animals experience pain in similar ways that humans do; in fact, their responses to pain are nearly identical – both humans and animals scream. Animals are subjected to painful and often fatal experiments when utilized for product toxicity testing or laboratory research. The animals, according to Orlans, are suffering from “Internal bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, paralysis, convulsions, and paralysis Euthanasia does not put dying animals out of their pain because death is the required endpoint.”

   When powerful computer systems, mathematical models, human tissue and cell cultures, and more focused clinical investigations can also show us what occurs to our bodies during sickness, there is no need to subject animals to pain and misery. If we acknowledge that animals have rights, then any experiment that violates an animal’s rights is morally wrong, regardless of the potential advantages to humanity. There is a difference between certain harm and prospective harm. The harm to humans caused by not experimenting on animals is uncertain, but the harm to animals caused by testing is certain.