Animal Testing is Wrong Essay Example for Free

Animal Testing is Wrong Essay Animal testing is cruel and inhuman! It is morally wrong to toture animals for our own benefit. Over 3 million animals have been tormented all in the name of research. It has been found that only 5-25% of side effects caused by medicines are accurately predicted. This leads me to wonder what is actually being gained by animal experimentation. It’s bad science! The Food and Drug Administration reported that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail on humans, making it wasteful. In recent years there has been the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time, and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. In the name of science, animal experiments globally are around 100 million experiments each year. Cats, dogs, rabbits, mice and other animals, no different to those we have as pets, are used in experiments. Animals are force-fed harmful substances, infected with lethal viruses, subjected to brain damage, heart attacks, stokes, cancers and ultimately killed. Several cosmetic tests commonly performed on mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs include:skin and eye irritation tests where chemicals are rubbed on shaved skin or dripped into the eyes without any pain relief. repeated force-feeding studies that last weeks or months, to look for signs of general illness or specific health hazards. widely condemned â€Å"lethal dose† tests, where animals are forced to swallow large amounts of a test chemical to determine what dose causes death. The fact that animals are used to study pain, depression, anxiety, and to test pain-killing drugs for human use, demonstrates that scientists recognize that animals are capable of suffering in many ways just like humans, but these sentient animals are unable to give their consent to participate in research. The fact that animals can suffer and experience pain is sufficient reason to refrain on moral grounds from harming them. Beyond pain, there is also persuasive evidence that animals, in particular mammals and birds, have thoughts, intentions, and memories. This means they can be harmed by confinement, frustration, fear, isolation, and loss of life experiences unavoidable for animals confined in Laboratories and used in experiments. The measurement of stress hormones, and presence of ulcers, immune suppression, abnormal behavior and brain dysfunction in laboratory animals, provide further evidence that animals commonly used in labs do suffer pain and distress. Some people claim that because animals do not have duties or responsibilities in the way humans do, they are not deserving of the same protection. However, some humans have no responsibilities or duties, such as babies, the mentally ill, or very infirm, yet they are not stripped of their rights in this way. Indeed, such individuals are usually considered more deserving of protection, not less. Others argue that the potential benefit to human society justifies experiments on animals. However this argument is a slippery slope, as this reasoning would also justify experiments on a few non-consenting humans for the ultimate benefit of human society a clearly unethical scenario. â€Å"If we didn’t use animals, we’d have to test new drugs on people. † The fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many animal tests are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. What I have to wonder is why do we test on animals, or feel the need to have people volunteer for something potential dangerous with its unknown side effects when we have child molesters, rapists, and murderers in prison who are catered to three meals a day? I believe we should enact instead of animal testing, (which has been proven to be highly ineffective) testing on convicted criminals on death row, or prisoners looking to cut down some time in exchange for experimentation and observation.