Essay About Use Of Animals And Closer Look

Animal Testing
Essay Preview: Animal Testing
Report this essay
The Use of animals for Laboratory Testing
There has been an on going debate on whether to use animals for laboratory
testing. There are people now saying the use of animals in laboratory testing is not
necessary and there are other alternatives. Many of these people claim the tests that are
performed on the animals are not particularly valid. On the other hand, others claim that
laboratory testing has been depended on animals to achieve medical advances. Whether
or not the use of animals in laboratory test is a matter of opinion. It will take the
necessary investigation and consideration to figure out what needs to be done. Taking a
closer look at each issue will help to show the use of laboratory testing should not be
used. There are three issues that show the use of animals in laboratory testing should not
be used: cruel, unnecessary, and there are other alternatives.
The most obvious issue not to use animals in laboratory testing is its cruel to
animals. Animals used in the labatories are used for testing drugs, vaccines, and
consumer products. Million of innocent animals die each year to determine the safety of
products for humans. “To my mind life of the lamb is no less precious that that of a
human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of the lamb for the sake of the human
body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man
from the cruelty of man” (Vincent 13). There are 2.5 million animals used in laboratory
testing each year in this country (Chea). The side effects of these tests are disturbing. The
side effects of the eye test are redness, swelling, ulceration, bleeding, and blindness.
Acute toxicity test effects are even worse. They include convulsions, labored breathing,
Brigman
Page 2
malnutrition, skin eruptions, and bleeding from the eyes. The side effects of the skin test
are redness of the skin, inflammation, weeping, and scabbing. The animals may also
suffer symptoms such as abdominal pains and cramps, vomiting, paralysis, diarrhea,
difficulty breathing, and bleeding ulcers. When all of the experiments are finished all of
the animals is killed (Chea).
Another issue of using animals in laboratory is its unnecessary. History has
shown that many important medical advances have been made by clinical research and
close observations of human patients, not animals. A study done by Vincent, at a Animal
Research Medical Center found that the researchers are doing useless lung experiments
on dogs. They would remove sixty-eight percent of those foxhounds lungs and forced
then to run on treadmills with masks placed over their faces. To fit the mask, the dog
canine teeth are cut down. After exercises are completed, the dogs are killed and their
lungs are examined. “The conclusion that has been reached is that tremendous pain and
suffering are being inflicted upon helpless animals under the guise of research, and the
results being attained or admittedly on no benefits to mankind” (Vincent 17). In most
cases the drugs will need to be tested on humans before the FDA will approve them
anyway and it is know fact that not all drugs work the same on humans as they do on
animals (Masci). Therefore, regardless of animal testing the consumer always becomes
the so called “guinea pig” for any new product.
The most important issue is understanding why companies still test on animals
when non-animal alternatives exist. In response to reducing animal use in laboratory
testing, a growing number of alternatives test have been develop. In vitro test (involving