Arguments Aganist Using Animals in Experiments and Testing

Animals, as people, are living creature; They can hear, see, remember, feel scent, distinguish things, and even behave reasonably following some kinds of behavior pattern. Similarly to a human being, they are able to experience many underlying feelings; They feel pain if harmed or exposed to tortures. If a dog did not see its owner, who has been somewhere away for a while and now returned, it might feel pleasure and happiness. When the owner perishes, dogs tend to feel a longing for months and even years. Nothing changes when putting experiments because "all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us"(Singer, n.d.). As far as animals can feel pain, experimenting on them appears vicious and brutal, and no longer can remain legal.

As a matter of fact, the exposure animals to danger and pain is not just an violent act, but often turns out to be useless. Physiologically, animals and people have some similarities. For example, their nervous systems respond like human do. Therefore, when the animal are undergone to painful external or internal stimulus, under which people would feel pain too: dilated pupils, a rise of blood pressure, and an increased pulse rate, perspiration. In case the stimulus continues, a level of blood pressure may drop. Nevertheless, human beings have a more developed and complicated organism. Compared to animals, human cerebral cortex is more complex, so this part of the brain is concerned with thinking processes rather than with basic emotions, impulses, and feelings. In addition, from the perspective of genetics, differences go so far that human beings and non-human species become incomparable(“Arguments Against Animal Testing”). Therefore, in most cases, animals can not get sick with human illnesses such as many types of cancer, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, HIV, or schizophrenia. Resting on this information, it becomes evident that there is no point in torturing animals.

Next, the extent to which experiments cause suffering and pain the ability of animals to comprehend and experience and they serves the subject of serious debate as well. Thus, in their article, Nurunnabi, Afroz, and Alam found out that 670,000 animals (57%) were used in experiments that did not involve more than momentary distress or pain. At the same time, approximately 420,000 (36%) participated in procedures where the pain was relieved by anesthetic substances. However, 84,000 (7%) animals were exposed to experiments that caused pain which was not relieved by anything. Also, this article indicates that in terms of suffering, research projects could be categorized as mild, moderate, and substantial. Hence, it revealed that 4% of all experiments were categorized as unclassified, 39% as mild, 55% as moderate, and 2% as substantial(13). These facts show that people disregard the fact that animals have the ability to respond to the painful physical stimuli. They just may believe that it is important to conduct experiments forgetting that "specific diseases almost always differ among species in prevalence, manifestations, natural history, and responses to treatments"(Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 1). As a result, this scientific way will likely lead to nothing but to countless amounts of tortured-to-death animals.

However, there is a considerable number of individuals who still consider this violent act vital for the world because through it contribute to science and, thus, make the area of health care and cosmetics safer and better. They believe that experimenting on animals has no alternatives which would be as efficient and allow achieving as good results. However, the technological revolution has revealed entirely opposed results. For the past years, researchers have found many ways which could serve a reliable replacement for live creatures. For instance, non-animal methods involve “computational models, bioinformatics, systems biology, in vitro techniques, tissue engineering, microfluidics, stem cell methods, epidemiology, human tissue studies, genetic methods, advanced imaging technologies”(Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 4). At present, a replacement for animal experiments is broadly available. Therefore, people can use it and, hence, demolish ineffective animal paradigm replacing it with harmless and humane methods. Regardless the idea that without animal testing the cosmetics along with medicine would not be as advanced as they are now, the alternative approaches confirm that that there is no need in animals. The reality shows that the number of animals involved in experiments has been significantly reduced (Mur 23). Consequently, it becomes apparent that there is no need in performing tests and experiments on live creatures. More reasonable and effective way is to shift the focus toward alternatives.

To conclude, there are numbers of various types of experiments has been performed with the use of animals. While most of medical equipment and treatment has been created without any animal involvement, numerous experiments are still exposing animals to danger and pain without proper justification. Furthermore, regardless many still consider animal experiments vital, the evidence show the world can and should dispense with them. Therefore, since these creatures similar to a human being are capable of experience feelings and distinguishing physical stimuli, as well as there is no need in using them, such experiment using them should be banned.

More examples of controversial essays.