ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animals are used for research in a variety of settings,
including tests to determine the safety of drugs,
cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not
humans should use animals for testing purposes,
however, is a controversial subject. There are both pros
and cons to using animals for testing, but the scientific
community, the government and society in general have
yet to reach a consensus on this ethical issue.
One of the primary advantages of animal testing is that
it allows researchers to develop new medications and
treatments, advancing the field of medicine and
enhancing the health of society. For instance, many
drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes,
infections and other medical maladies have resulted
from tests performed on animals. Many proponents of
animal testing support the practice for this reason, even
if they do not support testing cosmetics or other non-
essential substances on animals.
Animal testing also enables scientists and researchers
to test the safety of medications and other substances
with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for
instance, may pose significant risks to humans, so
testing them on animals first gives researchers a chance
to determine drugs' safety before human trials are
performed. While scientists are cognizant of the
differences between humans and animals, the
similarities are considered significant enough to produce
relevant, useful data that they can then apply to
humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans
and saves lives, not only because the exposure to risky
substances is minimized, but because resulting
medications and treatments have such positive impacts
on the overall quality of life experienced by humans.
Critiques of Animal Testing
One of the major disadvantages to animal testing is
that a significant number of animals are harmed or die
as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately,
many of the substances used on animal subjects never
receive approval for human use or consumption. Those
who oppose animal testing consider this a very
important point, because humans receive no direct
benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals.
Opponents also argue that animals are dissimilar
enough from humans to make the results of animal
tests unreliable. A related criticism is that testing
induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects
do not react to experimental substances in the same
way that they might in more natural circumstances,
making the results of experiments less valid.
Using animals as research subjects is also expensive,
because the animals require food, shelter, care and
treatment in addition to the costs of experimental
substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can
increase the costs of the practice as well. The actual
price paid for the animals is also worth consideration;
there are companies that breed and sell animals
specifically for testing purposes.