Technology and animal testing have provided the human population with many

advancements in the past century. Every opportunity to embrace these

advancements should be used for the betterment of the human population. It is
often an argument based on personal opinion, but once the facts are analyzed,
the affirmatives of animal testing outweigh the rationale for banning animal
testing. The study of diabetes, as well as other dise ases, have8 benefited
significantly from animal testing.

. Animal testing within reason should not be banned.

Federal regulations require scientific justification of the
need to do testing and to provide statistical justification
for the number of animals needed to be tested. Unlike
the 1960s, today’s animal studies are not done
haphazardly without regards to the number of animals
used. Some animal studies being conducted are to help
with decreasing animal species populations and other
studies are assist in development of life saving
medications- we would not want to give a medication to
an infant that has not been tested on animals first.
Investigators must consider whether animals are
required or whether suitable replacement alternatives
exist.
When animals are used, the investigator must consider
how best to decrease the number of animals used to a
minimum and/or how to maximize the amount of
information obtained per animal (Reduction alternatives)
and must identify potential harms and ways to minimize
these (Refinement alternatives). Consideration of the
Three R’s will start during the early stages of research
planning, together with development of the experimental
protocol (rather than as a last-minute addition). Animal
testing is revolutionary and there is no other alternative
to new medicine unless you would rather test on
humans. Hence keeping all the safety guidelines in place
and testing animals only when there is no absolute
alternative, animal testing and sacrifice should not be
banned.
There are currently no alternatives to animal testing that
adequately model the kinetics and toxicity of chemicals
in the mammalian body. Animal testing is highly
predictive of human responses, particularly if conducted
in at least two species, as required by law. Animal
testing is currently irreplaceable for safety testing of
new drugs, agricultural and industrial chemicals, foods
and food ingredients. All mammals are very similar in
their metabolism and in the few areas in which
laboratory species differ from human beings,
toxicologists have a very good understanding of those
differences, so we know when a response in a rat or
beagle is not predictive of human response. Despite
decades of research into alternatives to animal testing,
only a very few viable alternatives in the areas of dermal
and ocular response have been developed. Computer
programs and “organ on a chip” models are of very
limited applicability at present. Anyone who says
otherwise is either very ignorant, or making deliberately
misleading claims. If you ask an opponent of animal
testing which computer program or programs
adequately replaces animal testing, they won’t be able to
tell you because no such program exists. Likewise if you
ask them how an organ on a chip can replace the
complexity of the intact, living mammalian body, they
won’t be able to tell you that either, because it can’t.
Show More
Modern medicine can be referred to as a stupendous
achievement by many. Certain types of aspirins and
general medication have saved the lives of billions of
people throughout the years. Many of these medicinal
solutions have been heavily researched to make absolutely
sure they will have the intended effect to treat illness and
save lives. This process of testing however, is the subject
of an overbearing movement dedicated to hinder the great
progress that has been made. Animal testing is this
subject. The idea is very simple, but highly controversial.
Supporters for it state “Animal testing has yielded countless
medical breakthroughs and consumer safety innovations,
and such research is essential to furthering scientific
understanding” (Infobase Learning). The opposition is
tough to refute because the benefits far outweigh any
objections. However, this does not discourage supporters.
Animal testing should remain as a staple solution to
scientific advancement in medicine, because it has allowed
us to save the lives billions of people, has no rival in its
ability to create results on a whole-body system, and has
been the cause for the most substantial medicinal and
cosmetic safety discoveries of the modern era.
Animal Testing has yielded the greatest discoveries of
modern medicine, and many examples of this can be found
everywhere you look
Pro 1

Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving

cures and treatments.
The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical
breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using
animals. [9] Experiments in which dogs had their pancreases rmoved led directly
to the discovery of insulin, critical to saving the lives of diabetics. [101] The polio
vaccine, tested on animals, reduced the global occurrence of the disease from
350,000 cases in 1988 to 27 cases in 2016. [112][113] [118] Animal research has
also contributed to major advances in understanding and treating conditions such
as breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria,
multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, and many others, and was instrumental in the
development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. [10][11]
[12][13] Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer
Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for
hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and says that the use of chimps is "our best
hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills thousands of
Americans annually. [14] [119] If thalidomide had been properly tested on
pregnant animals, its potential for causing severe birth defects would have been
discovered before the drug became legal for human use. [14]
Pro 2

There is no adequate alternative to testing on a

living, whole-body system.
Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex.
Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not
provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in
the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune
system. [9] Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory
system to carry the medicine to different organs. [15] Also, conditions
such as blindness and high blood pressure cannot be studied in tissue
cultures. [9] Computer models can only be reliable if accurate
information gleaned from animal research is used to build the models
in the first place. [16] Furthermore, even the most powerful
supercomputers are unable to accurately simulate the workings of
complex organs such as the brain. [12]
Pro 3

Animals are appropriate research subjects because

they are similar to human beings in many ways.
Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98%
genetically similar to humans. [9] All mammals, including humans, are
descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of
organs (c5heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the
same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous
system. [17] Because animals and humans are so biologically similar,
they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses,
including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [18]
Pro 4
Animals must be used in cases when ethical
considerations prevent the use of human subjects.
When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human
volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be
unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human
beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some
experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable
to impose on human subjects before animal testing. [19] The World
Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials
should be preceded by tests on animals. [20]
Pro 5

Animals themselves benefit from the results of

animal testing.
If vaccines were not tested on animals, millions of animals would have
died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus,
tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals
developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart
disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [9][21]Animal
testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from
extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and
the tamarins of Brazil. [13][9] Koalas, ravaged by an epidemic of
sexually transmitted chlamydia and now classified as endangered in
some regions of Australia, are being tested with new chlamydia
vaccines that slows the rate of infection and treats early stages of the
disease. [22] [18] [123] The American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA) endorses animal testing. [23]
Pro 6

Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in

place to protect animals from mistreatment.
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966 stipulating minimum housing
standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to
clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular
inspections by veterinarians. [3]All proposals to use animals for
research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Humane
treatment is enforced by each facility's IACUC, and most major
research institutions' programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane
practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of
Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). [24][25] All institutions
receiving funding from the US Public Health Service (PHS) must comply
with the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals. [3][26][27][28]
Pro 7

Animals often make better research subjects than

human beings because of their shorter life cycles.
Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so
researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic
manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations,
which would be infeasible using human subjects. [29][9] Mice and rats
are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly
because of their short lifespans. [30]
Pro 8

Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for

the animals’ sake and to ensure reliable test results.
Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists,
and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more
accurate findings. According to Nature Genetics "stressed or crowded
animals produce unreliable research results, and many phenotypes are
only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in
the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect
welfare issues." [31] At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's animal research
facility, for example, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily to
socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a "toy rotation
program" provides opportunities for play.[32]
Pro 9

Animals do not have rights, therefore it is

acceptable to experiment on them.
Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that
humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than
humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. If we
granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians,
and hunting would need to be outlawed. [33][34]
Pro 10

The vast majority of biologists and several of the

largest biomedical and health organizations in the
United States endorse animal testing.
A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89%
favored the use of animals in scientific research. [120] The American
Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association
for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society
of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research. [36]
[37][38][39][40]

Pro 11

Some cosmetics and health care products must be

tested on animals to ensure their safety.
so cosmetics companies must have their products tested on animals if
they want distribution in China. [43]Mosquito repellent, which helps
protect people from malaria and other dangerous illnesses, must
undergo toxicological testing (which involves animal testing) in order
to be sold in the United States and Europe. [44]
Pro 12

Religious traditions allow for human dominion over animals.

The Bible states in Genesis 1:26: "And God said... let them [human
beings] have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." [45] The BBC reports that
Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teaching allows for animal
experimentation as long as there is no unnecessary pain inflicted and
there is a real possibility of benefit to human beings. [46]
Pro 13
Relatively few animals are used in research, which is
a small price to pay for advancing medical progress.
People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million
cattle, pigs and sheep annually, yet we only use around 26 million
animals for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish. [1][2]
[115] We eat more than 1,800 times the number of pigs than the
number used in research, and we consume more than 340 chickens for
every research animal. [2]