animal testing should be banned short essay

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

• About Animal Testing /
• current page Arguments against animal testing

Arguments against animal testing

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences.

It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans.  Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.

Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments.

The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.

Unreliable animal testing

• 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work.
• Urology drugs have the lowest success rate (only 4% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by heart drugs (5% success rate), cancer drugs (5% success rate) and neurology drugs (6% success rate).
• Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans.
• A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.
• Another study showed that over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been “successful” in animal tests, but of the approximately 10% that progressed to human trials, none worked sufficiently well in humans.
• One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently, we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs ’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 “breakthroughs” had been realised in humans, and that was subject to several caveats.

Dangerous animal testing

• Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 140,000 heart attacks and strokes and 60,000 deaths worldwide.
• Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK, in 2006 suffered a severe immune reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.
• A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans.
• A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first.

Animals are different

• Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia.
• An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA.
• The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) is resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.
• Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in humans but toxic to dogs.
• Aspirin is toxic to many animals and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING

Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Alternatives to animal testing

subtitle: Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Science Page

Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Our History

subtitle: Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

What is animal testing?

subtitle: Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Types of animal testing

subtitle: Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Facts and figures on animal testing

subtitle: Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Science Publications

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?

The E.P.A. recently said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals. Do you support the decision?

By Natalie Proulx

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

On Sept. 10, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals, a decision that was hailed by animal rights groups but criticized by environmentalists and researchers who said the practice was necessary to rigorously safeguard human health.

What are your thoughts on animal testing? Do you think it is ever justified? Why or why not?

In “ E.P.A. Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing ,” Mihir Zaveri, Mariel Padilla and Jaclyn Peiser write about the decision:

The E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency plans to reduce the amount of studies that involve mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025, and to eliminate the studies entirely by 2035, though some may still be approved on a case-by-case basis. The agency said it would also invest $4.25 million in projects at four universities and a medical center that are developing alternate ways of testing chemicals that do not involve animals. “We can protect human health and the environment by using cutting-edge, ethically sound science in our decision-making that efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing,” Mr. Wheeler said in a memo announcing the changes. The E.P.A. has for decades required testing on a variety of animals — including rats, dogs, birds and fish — to gauge their toxicity before the chemicals can be bought, sold or used in the environment.

The article continues:

The practice of testing with animals has long prompted complex debates driven by passionate views on morality and scientific imperative. Reaction to Tuesday’s announcement was no different. “We are really excited as this has been something we’ve wanted for quite some time,” said Kitty Block, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, an animal protection organization. “The alternatives are the future. They’re more efficient and save lives.” Kathleen Conlee, the vice president of animal research issues at the Humane Society, said the E.P.A.’s move is “broad-sweeping and significant.” “This is the first time a government agency has made such a commitment and timelined its specific goals along the way,” Ms. Conlee said. “There’s been a lot of positive action among other federal agencies, but we want to see all government agencies take this step.” Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco’s school of medicine, said current alternatives to animal testing are somewhat useful. But Dr. Woodruff, who worked at the E.P.A. from 1994 to 2007, said only animal testing — a process honed over decades — was robust enough to gauge chemicals’ impacts on people of various ages, genetics and health backgrounds. “I definitely think we should be investing more in this research,” she said, referring to alternative testing. “But it’s really not ready for making decisions yet — at least the way that E.P.A. is making decisions.” Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said she was very concerned by the announcement. Dr. Sass said animals were still necessary to study chronic conditions, like cancer and infertility. Cells in a petri dish cannot yet replace whole living systems, she said. “The E.P.A.’s deadline is arbitrary,” Dr. Sass said. “Our interest isn’t in speed, it’s getting it right. We want proper animal testing because we don’t want harmful chemicals to end up in our food, air and water.”

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Do you support the decision by the E.P.A. to move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals? Or do you think animal testing is still necessary to regulate harmful substances that can have adverse effects on humans?

How important is it to you that the toxicity of chemicals and other environmental contaminants is rigorously studied and regulated? Why? Do you think not testing on animals hinders those efforts?

The Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs are among the government agencies that still rely on animal testing. Do you think animal testing is important in these sectors or any others? Why or why not?

Do you think animal testing is ever justified? If so, what should be the criteria for when, how and on what animals testing is done?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

8.10: Animal Testing Should Be Banned

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 35854

• Nathan Nobis
• Morehouse College via Open Philosophy Press

“Animal testing” involves experimenting on animals to try to determine whether drugs and medical treatments are safe and effective for humans. It’s wrong and should be banned.

Why? First, and most obviously, drugs and medical procedures treat diseases, injuries, and other health problems. So, to see if a treatment works, a disease or injury must be created in animals. Understatement: this is often unpleasant. Heart attacks in dogs feel awful; bone cancers in mice are painful; pigs being burned, to test burn treatments, is agonizing. Animals living with the induced conditions is unpleasant also. And they are killed at the end of the experiments to study the treatments’ effects.

It’s now easy to see why animal testing is wrong: it violates basic principles of ethical research: it is maleficent, or harmful to the research subjects; it is not beneficial to them; it is forced on them since they don’t consent; and it is unjust in that animals are burdened with problems not their own. Research – at least with animals who are conscious, and so are able to be harmed or made worse off – is wrong for reasons that comparable human research would be wrong.

Some argue that the benefits to humans justify animal testing. But when one group benefits at the major expense of another group, that’s usually wrong. And how exactly might anyone know that humans benefit more than animals are harmed? And there is scientific evidence that animal testing often is not beneficial for humans and that clinical research, public health research, and technology-based research are more useful: see the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Americans for Medical Advancement for more information.

Some claim there are “no alternatives” to animal testing, that it is “necessary.” But there are alternatives (mentioned above) and it’s not literally necessary that anyone do it: they can refrain. But suppose someone wanted to rob a bank and needed a getaway car: there is “no alternative” to a car and so it is “necessary” for the robbery. Does that make using the car OK? No. Even if something is “necessary” and there are “no alternatives” to doing it to achieve a particular end, that doesn’t make doing the action right: the end determines that.

Finally, some say that this reasoning is all beside the point: if your child was dying and animal testing would save him or her, wouldn’t you want the testing done? Many would and that’s an understandable feeling. But it’s unlikely that animal experimentation would help their child much: other methods are likely more fruitful. And more importantly, if my child were dying and I tried to experiment on my neighbor’s children to try to save my own child, that would be wrong.

Why? Simply because those children would be harmed and treated as mere things to be used (and abused) for my and my child’s benefit, which they are not. Since those reasons apply to many animals experimented upon, animal testing is also wrong.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Education

Free Argumentative Essay On Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Education , Technology , Medicine , Violence , Experiment , Blood , Animals , Human

Published: 12/05/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Animals Testing Essay

Arguably, animal testing has been an emotive subject with a lot of ethical, moral, and medical debate, and controversy for many decades. What we should all ask is, does the payback obtained by human beings from animal experimentation justify the inhumane, and harm caused to animals? Billions of animals in the world are killed in laboratories for experimental purposes (Monamy 17). Additionally, most of the animals die in the process of medical research, cosmetic experiments, as well as commercial research. Therefore, animal experimentation is harmful, inhumane, and cruel, and it should be banned.

Reasons why animal experimentation should be banned

Undoubtedly, if animal experimentation is exceptionally efficient, then why are there many cases of unsuccessful drug impacts in the field. It is argued by many medical practitioners that numerous medical advances are an outcome of animal experiment (Tilman 53). The argument is invalid, making it improper to use animals for experiment. The blood transfusion and blood groups of animals are incompatible to human blood. Therefore, when the experiment works in animals, it is not a guarantee that it also becomes successful in human. Hence, we should eliminate the use of animals in medical experiments (Monamy 37).

In the 21st century, technology is more advanced; hence, experiments should be used to undertake the experiments rather than animals. It is so unnecessary to use animals in carrying out the experiments, yet there is an efficient and the first way of carrying it out. By use of advanced technology, human blood can be subjected to test making, leading to realistic results (Tilman 56). For example, Corrositex is a test carried out by use of protein membrane, instead of the skin of animals. Additionally, use of technology is cheaper, than using animals for experiment. Animals are used in experimenting house detergents, cosmetics and cleaning products, which is not relevant in the field of medicine (Orlans 127). The test of such detergents could be carried by other means. When animals die in the experiment, it is more less the same as murder in the human contest, making it morally wrong. It is unethical to use millions of animals with feeling and thinking capacity in the experimental research. It is importance to understand that, animals have feelings like human beings; hence, we should not subject animals to loneliness, fear, and pain in the laboratory cage (Orlans 128). Perhaps, animal experimentation is unquestionably an imperfect science.

Alternative methods to animal experimentation

Most of drugs and food that pass through animals have been reported to have negative effects, or fail to be effective in human. Animal experimentation, prolong the suffering, and pain of human, as well as wasting resources that could have been used in effective human experimentation. In order to eliminate the use of animals in experiment, scientist and researches need to utilize other means of experimentation (Tilman 54). This alternative ways include, computer models, (PBPK) physiologically based pharmacokinetics, human volunteers, and other technological means. If it is extremely necessary to use animals for the experiment, it should be guided by three principles, which are replacement, reduction, and refinement. Replacement means using other non-animals means, reductions mean using fewer animals to optimize information, and finally refinement means using methods that reduce suffering, distress, and pain (Orlans 128).

Conclusively animal experimentation should be banned entirely, and no animal should be subjected to brutality, torture, and pain. In fact, in the contemporary world non-animal experimental research is humane, less time consuming, less expensive, as well as, more accurate. Despite the fact that change comes slowly, many researches should switch to advanced ways of experimenting using technology. Animal experimentation prevents researches from achieving the relevant information, at the same time killing and causing harm to people and animals. Companies and other organization need to fight for animal rights, and prevent animal suffering. Therefore, as per my opinion animal experimentation should be banned.

Whether your inquiry is ' write my essay for me free ' or 'I wanna pay for a ready essay', just write to us and we can help!

Monamy, V. Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Orlans, B. The Human use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice. New York. Wiley, 1998. Tilman, G. Science, Pseudo-Science, and Morals Values. London: Mazo Press, 2007.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 816

This paper is created by writer with

ID 281464499

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Ability argumentative essays, multimedia course work, vein course work, intestine course work, founding course work, calculation course work, humanitarian course work, recording course work, overalls essays, monetary essays, messiah essays, environmental conservation essays, core values essays, the consumption essays, food consumption essays, universal health care essays, grey essays, living organisms essays, glory essays, free course work on social inference, the problem term paper example, healthcare facilities course work examples, web servers applications course work examples, example of the cost of health care cost course work, professional perspectives course work example, can one be moral and not believe in god outline essay example, free case study on environmental studies, free business plan about aviation recruitment information system, the accident essay sample, gom db4 essays examples, safety and health course work example, good research paper on the biological and social homelessness factors, novel analysis essay sample, greece course work example, witchcraft essay example, good research paper on what is the foundation and purpose of the caste system and how does this create, good poor internal communications causing dissatisfied customer service report example, essay on affirming faith in freud and shakespeare a revisitation of the pyschoanalyst and, example of five lessons learned from catastrophic failures of leadership book review, how langston hughes celebrates african american identity in the poem essay samples, good education essay example, muslim women in soviet central asia research paper sample, free an evaluation of the inconvenient truth an informative documentary movie review sample.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights — Zoos Should Be Banned

Zoos Should Be Banned

• Categories: Animal Rights Conservation

About this sample

Words: 685 |

Published: Mar 25, 2024

Words: 685 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Review of the key topic, development of the topic.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Environment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1083 words

2 pages / 878 words

3 pages / 1576 words

2 pages / 858 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Rights

Animal testing has been a common practice in scientific research and testing for decades. The use of animals, however, remains a highly controversial issue. Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. [...]

Animal research has long been a contentious issue, with proponents touting its benefits to scientific progress and detractors decrying its ethical implications. This essay explores both sides of the debate and offers a [...]

The practice of keeping animals in captivity, whether in zoos, aquariums, circuses, or other forms of confinement, has long been a subject of ethical debate and controversy. While some argue that captivity serves educational and [...]

The question of whether animals should be free from human exploitation and captivity is a moral and ethical issue that has garnered increasing attention in recent years. Advocates of animal liberation argue that all animals, [...]

“Elephants in the wild travel up to 50 miles every day” and hundreds of those elephants are captured and bred into captivity (Dahl 1). Keeping them would be inherently cruel, for they would have to live the rest of their lives [...]

The banning of pit bulls based on their breed is an unjust and ineffective approach to addressing dog-related incidents. It unfairly stigmatizes a specific breed, ignores the importance of individual responsibility, and fails to [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free