Medical Advancement or Cruelty

Stop these inaccurate and abusive tests


Animal experimentation can be described in many ways, but beneficial is not one of them. Around the world, millions upon millions of animals in labs are killed each year for medical "advances". Many of the animals' deaths are in vain. Most vaccines that pass animal tests cannot pass just the first stage of human clinical trials ("Animal Experimentation"). There are many alternatives to animal experimentation that are more accurate. Some of these tests include testing on human tissues and chromatography (Thompson). Scientists sadly do not acknowledge these alternatives and continue to use these ineffective tests. Even animals under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) can be physically and mentally traumatized ("Animal Experimentation.").


From showing little accuracy towards humans to being very cruel and inhumane, animal experimentation should be banned.


Animal experimentation has cured many diseases. Some of these diseases include small pox and polio (Owen 8).


In the 1930s, less than 1 in 5 people were still alive 5 years after diagnosis with cancer. Now, almost half of all cancer patients live at least five years after diagnosis. This survival rate increase is partly credited to more than 30 anti-cancer drugs, that were tested and developed from animals, and then tested on humans (Owen 39).


Firstly, results from animal testings are often inconclusive and cannot be accurately extrapolated to humans (Thompson). In 1978 alone, roughly one and a half million people living in the United States were hospitalized as a consequence of using drugs or vaccines that were "cures" for animals with the same disease (Thompson). 30% of the people hospitalized in 1978 suffered further damage from therapy prescribed to them (Thompson). The animals that are tested cannot tell the experimenter how they are feeling, such as when they are suffering from head aches, feeling nausea, depression, or other psychological disturbances (Thompson). In a test where a certain drug increased the survival rate of rats after their hearts were stopped, the treatment was conducted on humans (Pat). Instead of decreasing the mortality rates, the death rates increased by 30% (Pat). Scientists should definitely consider the alternatives to animal experimentation. Stopping it and using the money for something else can be just as effective in other ways. Many billions of dollars are spent each year on these tests.
Big image

Video on how some animals are treated in laboratories

(Please excuse the excessive profanity in this video, I was looking for a long time and finally came across this. This was basically all I could find.)

Rebuttal 2

Secondly, animal experimentation is very cruel and inhumane. Before the deaths of some animals tested, they are forced to breath toxic fumes, some immobilized in resilient devices for hours, and even others getting holes drilled in their skulls or their spinal cords crushed ("Animal Experimentation"). The tests are not the only harmful thing done to these innocent animals. They are also deprived of everything natural and important to them. Tested animals are kept in barren cages, they are socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized ("Animal Experimentation"). They are treated as nothing more than disposable lap equipment. Yes, there is a cure for polio, but that is only because tens of thousands of monkeys were injected with different vaccines to find it (Owen 8). The suffering of those monkeys should point to using other ways to find cures.


Overall the negatives of animal experimentation definitely seem to outweigh the benefits. Sure, animal experimentation has cured multiple diseases, but the amount of animals and suffering show that we should be reconsidering how we cure diseases. Many alternatives have already been found (Thompson). The different ways to find vaccines are much less painful than animal experiments. For some reason, scientists continue to stick with abusing these poor and unprotected animals for vaccines that rarely work on humans. The results of experiments can be variable and easily manipulated (Thompson). The AWA needs to create enforce harsher policies. It does't even restrict what types of tests can be performed on these animals ("Animal Experimentation").


"Animal Experimentation." Current Issues: Macmillan Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. Feb 18. 2015.

Tamara Thompson. "Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 2011. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2012. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. Feb 21. 2015.

Owen, Marna A. Animal Rights-yes or No? Minneapolis: Lerner Publications, 1993. Print.

Pat, Thomas. "Animal Experimentation Hampers Medical Research." Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Greenhaven Press. Web. Feb 10. 2015.