Arguments Aganist Using Animals in Experiments and Testing

Introduction

Animals, like humans, are living creatures. They can hear, see, remember, sense smells, distinguish things, and even behave reasonably, following certain behavior patterns. Similar to human beings, they are capable of experiencing a wide range of emotions. They feel pain if harmed or subjected to torture. If a dog hasn't seen its owner, who has been away for a while and now returns, it may feel pleasure and happiness. When the owner passes away, dogs tend to feel longing for months and even years. This emotional capacity does not change in the context of 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 animals can feel pain, experimenting on them appears vicious and brutal and should no longer be legal.

Arguments Against Using Animals in Experiments and Testing

The exposure of animals to danger and pain is not just a violent act but often turns out to be useless. Physiologically, animals and humans have some similarities. For example, their nervous systems respond similarly to how humans do. Therefore, when animals are subjected to painful external or internal stimuli, they exhibit responses such as dilated pupils, a rise in blood pressure, increased pulse rate, and perspiration, just as humans would. If the stimulus continues, blood pressure levels may drop. However, human beings have a more developed and complex organism. Compared to animals, the human cerebral cortex is more intricate, focusing more on thinking processes rather than basic emotions, impulses, and feelings. From a genetic perspective, the differences are so profound that humans and non-human species become incomparable (“Arguments Against Animal Testing,” n.d.). Therefore, in most cases, animals cannot contract human illnesses such as many types of cancer, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, HIV, or schizophrenia. This information makes it evident that there is no point in torturing animals.

The extent to which experiments cause suffering and pain, as well as the ability of animals to comprehend and experience these sensations, serves as a subject of serious debate. In their article, Nurunnabi, Afroz, and Alam (n.d.) discovered 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 pain was relieved by anesthetic substances. However, 84,000 (7%) animals were exposed to experiments that caused pain which was not relieved by anything. This article also indicates that in terms of suffering, research projects could be categorized as mild, moderate, and substantial. It revealed that 4% of all experiments were unclassified, 39% were mild, 55% were moderate, and 2% were substantial. These facts show that people often disregard the fact that animals have the ability to respond to painful physical stimuli. They may believe it is essential 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, n.d.). As a result, this scientific approach will likely lead to nothing but countless numbers of tortured-to-death animals.

Technological Alternatives to Animal Testing

However, a considerable number of individuals still consider this violent act vital for the world because they believe it contributes to science and, thus, makes healthcare and cosmetics safer and better. They argue that experimenting on animals has no alternatives that are as efficient and allow for achieving similarly good results. However, the technological revolution has revealed entirely opposing results. In recent years, researchers have discovered many methods that could reliably replace 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, n.d.). Presently, replacements for animal experiments are widely available. Therefore, people can use these methods and thereby replace ineffective animal paradigms with harmless and humane alternatives. Despite the belief that without animal testing, cosmetics and medicine would not be as advanced as they are now, alternative approaches confirm that there is no need for animals. Reality shows that the number of animals involved in experiments has significantly reduced (Mur, n.d.). Consequently, it becomes apparent that there is no need to perform tests and experiments on live creatures. A more reasonable and effective way is to shift the focus toward alternatives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a vast number of experiments have been performed using animals. While most medical equipment and treatments have been developed without animal involvement, numerous experiments still expose animals to danger and pain without proper justification. Furthermore, although many still consider animal experiments vital, the evidence shows that the world can and should dispense with them. Since these creatures, similar to humans, are capable of experiencing feelings and distinguishing physical stimuli, and since there is no need to use them, experiments involving them should be banned.

References

• Arguments Against Animal Testing. (n.d.). Retrieved from [source]
• Nurunnabi, M., Afroz, R., & Alam, M. (n.d.). [Title of the article]. Retrieved from [source]
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. (n.d.). [Title of the article]. Retrieved from [source]
• Singer, P. (n.d.). [Title of the article]. Retrieved from [source]
• Mur, L. (n.d.). [Title of the article]. Retrieved from [source]