Introduction
Science is doing several kinds of inventions to make the life of everyone easier. Animal testing is also a part of science as from where researchers do inventions in the field of biology. In animal testing different type of organisms are used for various purposes. Scientist makes many types of medicines, vaccine, skin and hair products after testing. Many masses are in against of the experimentation on animals as it is considered as the cruellest behaviour of human beings as they torture animals too much during testing and many animals die due to these tests. In some religions hurting animals is considered as sin like in Hindu religion people worship animals like lion, cow ,rats whereas, some masses think that to invent new drugs, cosmetics animal testing is the most important step. There is a several rights for animals which protects them in many ways and many people are working for the welfare of the animals from many years . So, I believe that animals testing shows unkindness of humans, wastage of money as well as time. It also contains many other alternatives such as cell culture, tissue culture, computer models which can easily replace testing on animals.
There is a several reasons which shows that animal testing should be banned. First and the foremost reason is that animal suffers a lot from these experimentation as scientist give them injuries without animal’s fault. For instance, scientist sometimes cut the tail of rats to show that is it hereditary? Or to find what is the reason behind having a tail. So, these test does not make any sense for a normal person. In this type of test just to enhance the knowledge about animal’s body, scientist hurt animals by cutting their body parts. It is not about inventing any drug , they do these tests to maintain their records. But these experiments are very painful as sometimes they do trials on pregnant organism which is not expected from a human being. Also, they do not give them a pain reliever injection. As a study shows that “Many times, the animals surviving the clinical testing are euthanized at the end of an experiment to avoid the later pain and distress. In some cases, animals die as a result of the experiment” (Doke 224).These experiments gives them a feeling that someone is trying to kill them without any reason. If we imagine that someone is cutting our hand just to find anything new in our body, then it does not make us happy and as a human we will not agree to have this type of trail on us.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Secondly, scientist do huge amount of investment of money on doing these trails on animals . It is not proven that they always get proper results for the first time because they have to try these things many times to come on a conclusion or to prove their point. Because nobody is going to accept their result if they do not verify them properly and for passing that other scientist also does trails on animals. Also, those scientists which do not agree or have any doubt on their saying, they will try to make them wrong by repeating those experiments. One observation shows that, “Animal testing statistics reveal that thousands of dollars are spent every year on animal testing and the activities cost the lives of millions of animals”(Nakate).So, it is considered as the misuse of cash of normal people. As, the money that they are using come from the taxes that people have given to the government. In some countries, majority of people are in against of animal testing like in New Zealand. As an evidence shows that, “To the best of our knowledge there never has been any animal testing for cosmetics in New Zealand, but this amendment will send an important message that this kind of testing is unacceptable to New Zealand and will never happen here”(Cronin). This shows that masses do not want animals to have experiments on them as it wastes a lot of time of scientist to get outcomes and those researchers are very skilled and highly educated as well. So, the cost of hiring an expert and to perform experiment is also too much. In this way companies and government waste country’s money on this kind of things which can be better use on other social issues.
In addition to that there are a several alternatives to animal experimentation. For instance, we have many other techniques like cell culture, tissue culture, cloning, computer models, 3 Rs(replacement, reduction and refinement) etcetera. So, if we have many other ways to invent medicines, vaccines against viruses, bacteria then why we should give pain to animals? Only because they are the soft target of humans as they can not speak and are not able to express their pain. There are many techniques which can replace animal experimentation. Such as, “Bathes of vaccine against yellow fever used to be tested for efficacy on animals in lethal dose tests, but these tests were replaced by a cell culture test, a plaque- reduction neutralization test, in the 1970s”(Taylor 586).This shows that if we want to change something then we can adapt other techniques or we can search other methods to save the life of animals. So, if scientist choose these techniques over animal testing then we can save thousands of animals, millions of dollars as well as time .However, scientist believe that animal that they use for experimentation have same physiology as humans and they are able to get the results that they are expecting. Also, they think that there is a surety of saving life of people. While, folks which are against of animal testing claim that if there is accuracy of result then, they are supposed to get vaccine and medicines of every disease without any failure of experiment. Because we know that animal’s body functions are not totally the same as human beings. So, the medicines which are discovered after testing might fail on humans and can also gives them several side effects. It is better to use cell culture like methods as these cells are directly taken from the body of humans such as liver, kidney, brain , skin cells. Also, these techniques are very fast which can save time and are easy to follow.
To conclude, there are a various other method which can save the life of animals. The need is that to change the techniques with new adaptive methods because as a human being we have no right to hurt any creature for our benefit. As, it is an unacceptable behaviour of humans, wastage of nation’s money on these test, wastage of a lot of precious time despite of having many other alternatives which are easier to follow and can save money and time. So, government should consider the views of those which are against of animal testing as they also have a valid reason for the favour of banning. Animal also have a life and they always love humans if we treat them properly. So, as a good person it is our responsibility to make a safe place for animals by banning the animal testing .
Works Cited
- Cronin, Melissa. “New Zealand Bans Cosmetics Testing On Animals”. The dodo,31 March 2015, https://www.thedodo.com/cosmetic-testing-ban-new-zealand-1068482258.html. Accessed on 23 November 2019
- Doke, Sonali K. “Alternative to animal testing :A review”. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal,vol.23,July 2015,pp.223-229. ScienceDirect, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1319016413001096. Accessed on 25 November 2019
- Nakate, Shashank. Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned? Is Cruelty The Only Reason? Opinion Front, 12 March 2018, https://opinionfront.com/why-should-animal-testing-be-banned. Accessed on 26 November 2019.
- “Need for alternative to animals in experimentation :An Indian perspective.” Indian Journal of Medical Research ,vol.149,no.5,May 2019,pp584-592.EBSCOhost, web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=10&sid=bd71626d-1713-4f45-bf8e-35cc71e53862%40pdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=138126109&db=a9. Accessed 29 November 2019.
- Taylor, Katy. “Recent Developments in Alternatives to Animal Testing.” Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change, edited by Kathrin Herrmann and Kimberley Jayne, vol. 22, Brill, LEIDEN, BOSTON, 2019, pp. 585–609. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvjhzq0f.31. Accessed on 30 November 2019.
- Whyte, Chelsea. “The animal-testing Paradox.” New Scientist,vol.244,no.3251,oct 2019,pp18.EBSCOhost, http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=22&sid=bd71626d-1713-4f45-bf8e-35cc71e53862%40pdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=139035675&db=a9h.acessed . Accessed 30 November 2019.
Stuck on your essay?
