why animal testing is bad 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

Lab on chip (LOC) is a device that integrates laboratory functions on nano chip

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

On 23 May 1919 we joined forces with Dogs Trust to hold a demonstration in Parliament Square

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.

Pig in cage at Vivotecnia laboratory a 3 written on head

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.

Three white rabbits in stocks in a laboratory

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.

Orange and white pills on an orange background

Science Publications

The failures of animal testing

Katy taylor, creative commons 4.0.

Exaggerating the importance and value of animal research creates a false sense of confidence in the use of animal testing among the public and medical professionals.

We have all seen it. A front-page headline from a tabloid newspaper heralding a 'breakthrough' in the fight against a major disease. A common thread connects many of these reported developments - whether that be cancer or Alzheimer’s.

Namely, the false assumption that because of testing on animals in laboratories there have been new solutions that will revolutionise outcomes for human health.

The promise of clinical efficacy through animal testing is dangerous. It is often cited as the rationale behind the need to continue animal testing on a mass scale and is not always based on evidence.

Objectively, those who support the use of animal testing in medical research, do so on the basis that it is furthering advances in the treatment of humans.

However, the widely reported links between animal testing and advances in human medicine by the UK press have recently been found to contain widespread inaccuracies and exaggerations.

In research published in BMJ Open Science, it was shown that the majority of 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK national print media inflated the value or success of animal testing.

In a study by Cruelty Free International, out of 27 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK media, twenty failed outright to translate into any human relevant benefit and only one resulted in clinical use.

The findings highlight that reports of animal research leading to human-relevant breakthroughs should be viewed with caution. The ramifications of misleading news are severe, they not only lead to a crisis in confidence relating to medical research more broadly but continue to propagate the notion that animals need to be subjected to extreme cruelty for science to progress.

Exaggerating the importance and value of animal research creates a false sense of confidence in the use of animal testing among the public and medical professionals. This has serious implications for government policies, industry regulators, funding and public opinion.

It is important that the media are better educated about the limits and reality of animal research, so that they do not inflate its value, encouraging them to highlight the more effective clinical research being conducted using animal-free methods and report on the very real funding and regulatory barriers that human-relevant research currently faces.

A transition towards appropriate reporting of the value and successes of animal testing could have a dramatic impact on animal protection worldwide. Sadly, the most recent statistics show that between 2015 and 2017, the UK conducted the highest number of animal experiments in Europe.

In 2019, 3.4 million animal experiments were completed in the UK. This is in direct contrast to public opinion which increasingly opposes animal research.

A 2019 Ipsos MORI report revealed a growing shift in attitudes towards animal experiments in the UK with two thirds of those surveyed concerned about the use of animals in research, and more people disagreeing with the use of dogs (86 percent against), monkeys (86 percent against) and pigs (79 percent against) in tests, even if it benefits human health.

Under UK and EU regulation, animal testing should not be authorised or conducted if another alternative approach or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought is recognised. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case, with a pertinent example being that of botox testing.

Batch tests for the potency of vials of botulinum toxin products sold to beauty clinics continue to use mice, even though there is a recognised cell-based test that could and should be used in their place.

In these tests, mice are injected with the toxin and becoming increasingly paralysed over a period of three days. Half of the mice will die from the tests, those who survive will be killed anyway.

Not only would replacing animal tests with humane, human-relevant methods provide a great leap forward in the fight for animal rights, but animal-free methods are often cheaper, faster and more accurate than the animal tests they replace.

The use of human-relevant methods could therefore also lead to huge gains for both human health and the environment.

To achieve more effective testing methods and increased animal protection it is important that we address the information being disseminated on the topic.

Headlines sharing breakthroughs based on animal tests should be treated with extreme caution; the reliance of governments on animal testing will only begin to wane when its value is accurately reported in the media and is balanced against the public’s very real desire to protect animals from suffering.

This Author

Dr Katy Taylor is the Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs of Cruelty Free International.

Donate to The Ecologist and support high impact environmental journalism and analysis.

The failure of animal testing

Media speculation over Gatwick disruption

Badger Cull has brought out the best of British compassion

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

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

Food & Farming Media Network
How to Pitch Us
Freelance Charter
Work With Us

Sentient Media

Environmental Policy
Code of Ethics
Testimonials

Explainer: What Is Animal Testing?

Vaccines, medications and cosmetics rely on animal testing even though the process is cruel, unreliable and often inaccurate.

Explainer • Animal Testing • Policy

Words by Björn Ólafsson

The use of animals in experiments is so endemic that “guinea pig” is used as an alternative term for “test subject.” But underlying this ubiquity is a set of processes that harm animals unnecessarily: rats force-fed drugs designed to induce tumors, monkeys kept in tiny cages with chemicals irritating their skin and beagles euthanized without any anesthesia.

Critics say many of these experiments are unreliable and even unnecessary. Advocates for reduced animal testing earned a win in December 2022: the FDA announced that it would no longer require animal tests prior to approving a drug for human trials.

What Is Animal Testing?

Animal testing, sometimes called in vivo testing, is a process of determining if certain medications, vaccines and cosmetics are safe for humans by first experimenting with them on animals. Animal testing is common in most countries and has been used in some forms throughout much of human history.

Cosmetic Testing

Cosmetic testing is a process of using animals to test any cosmetic product before human use, such as makeups, lotions, creams, fragrances, oils or facial masks.

Testing for Medicine

Medical testing involves using animals to examine new drugs, research biological systems, investigate genetic factors, delve into animal psychologies or test out surgical strategies. Nowadays, drugs are the most common form of medical testing on animals.

The History of Animal Testing

Animal testing is a long-documented practice, with some of the oldest instances dating back to around 300 B.C. in ancient Greece. Yet while animal testing was widespread in the form of vivisection and practice for operations, it wasn’t until the 20th century that medicines were commonly tested on animals. In fact, several laws were passed in this period, including the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the U.S., that encouraged or mandated the use of animals in testing before human consumption.

What Types of Animals Are Used in Animal Testing?

Invertebrates.

Common invertebrates used in animal testing include fruit flies and nematode worms. Unfortunately for these animals, no federal protections exist to minimize their pain or suffering in the U.S.

Vertebrates

There’s truth in the common phrase “lab rat” — 95 percent of animals used in animal testing are mice or rats. Dogs, cats, pigs, monkeys, other primates, rabbits and sheep are all used in addition to rodents.

How Many Animals Are Used in Experiments Each Year?

This is a difficult question to answer, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture only counts certain species of animals in its annual review of animal testing. Mice and rats specifically bred for testing purposes are not counted because they do not fall under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act.

However, it’s been estimated that at least 50 million animals are used in the U.S. every year. The real number is unknown and may be higher. Worldwide, exact numbers are unknown, but some estimate the number to be around 200 million experiments per year.

What’s Wrong With Animal Testing?

Is animal testing painful.

Some researchers attempt to reduce the pain for animal test subjects, but many do not. According to the USDA animal usage summary report , roughly 8 percent of animals were experimented on with no measures taken to ensure pain reduction. This report does not take into account animals that do not fall under the Animal Welfare Act, so the real number is unknowable and likely much higher.

Even animals protected by the Animal Welfare Act are often subjected to levels of pain that are hard to comprehend. Of all surgeries on animals, 40 percent do not report using anesthesia, and drugs are often force-fed to animals. Animals are also often killed after the experiments are completed, long before the end of their natural lifespan.

Are Animal Testing Results Reliable?

Animal tests do not catch all possible side effects before drugs move to a later phase of testing. According to a 2004 report from the USDA, 92 percent of medicines that pass an animal testing phase will not proceed to market, and a major cause of this failure is safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests. More recent reports from scientists estimate an even higher number of 96 percent .

There are a variety of reasons why animal tests are considered unreliable. According to a 2015 review in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , these include the effects of laboratory conditions; the different ways that diseases impact animals and humans; and the differences in physiology and genetics across species, all of which lead to inaccuracies. Due to such factors, a breakthrough meta-analysis published in Alternatives to Laboratory Animals in 2015 argued that a lack of toxicity of a drug in any of the five species most commonly used in animal testing — dogs, rats, mice, rabbits and monkeys — was not able to indicate the likelihood of a similar lack of toxicity in humans. In other words, animal tests don’t work.

Advocates for animal testing often argue that the complexity of a living organism — the organs, circulatory system and genetic regulation — will affect drugs in a way that single tissue samples cannot. This argument fails to account for the fact that nonhuman systems are very different from human systems, which leads to inaccuracy.

Animal testing can also lead to banning drugs that would benefit humans. For example, tamoxifen , a drug used to treat breast cancer, can cause tumors in rodents. If this drug had been tested on animals in early phases of research, it is likely the benefits of tamoxifen would have remained untapped.

Is Animal Testing Cruel?

Due to the combination of low accuracy and high amounts of pain, it is difficult to argue that animal testing is not cruel. Animals such as rats, mice, dogs and chimpanzees are burned, poisoned, crippled, starved or abused in other ways via drugs, confinement or other invasive procedures.

Animals like these are sensitive to pain, emotionally empathetic and capable of forming social bonds. But to the researchers in charge of them, they are nothing more than tools.

Is Animal Testing Archaic?

Due to the inaccuracy of animal testing, voices have arisen to criticize its outdated methodology. Not only is animal testing an old-fashioned practice that hasn’t been brought into the 21st century, but evidence shows it is likely holding back medical research.

Is Animal Testing Wasteful?

Because of the inaccuracy of animal testing, many scientists and experts argue that its existence is inherently wasteful. British doctor Ian Roberts writes that “biased or imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically inert or even harmful substances, thus . . . wasting scarce research resources.”

Is Animal Testing Illegal?

Cosmetics testing has been banned in 42 countries and 10 U.S. states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, Louisiana, New York and Virginia). New York’s ban on cosmetic testing goes into effect in January 2023 , which makes it possible that more states will continue to follow their lead.

No countries currently ban medical animal testing, but this may soon change. This year, Switzerland held a referendum on medical animal testing. A large Swiss pharmaceutical lobby campaigned against the initiative, which was ultimately unsuccessful. But the fact that animal testing went from untouchable fact to subject of a national debate sparks doubt about its continued acceptance in the future.

Aren’t There Laws To Protect Animals Used in Experiments?

There do exist some laws to protect animals, such as the U.S. Animal Welfare Act. However, this law does very little to protect animals from pain, and doesn’t even count rats and mice as protected animals.

Cosmetic testing is far more controversial in the public sphere and therefore more heavily regulated. It is almost entirely banned in the European Union and other countries, including Guatemala, Colombia, India, Taiwan and the U.K. The U.S. has no federal cosmetics ban.

Why Are Animals Still Used in Experiments?

Despite the lack of sustained evidence for animal testing’s usefulness, and the possibility of cheaper alternatives (as discussed below), animal testing seems to be used far more often than it should be. Why?

First of all, the pharmaceutical industry has maintained a clear interest in preserving animal testing, and only very rarely review evidence about its actual usefulness. Another issue is scientific tradition and established practice. Scientists are likely to cite historical precedent as a reason for selecting an animal model, as opposed to the model’s similarity to human systems or effectiveness in predicting toxicity, according to a 2019 paper in Alternatives to Animal Experimentation .

Should Animal Testing Be Banned?

Calls to ban animal testing because of its ineffectiveness and cruelty have been getting louder in recent years. Entire conferences are held to discuss alternatives to animal testing, and many petitions and campaigns are igniting across the world. These voices don’t just originate from the animal liberation movement, either. Prominent scientists , pharmaceutical bosses and concerned citizens are joining the chorus.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Thankfully, there exist several alternatives to animal testing, some of which have become more popular and common in recent years.

In Vitro Testing

In vitro testing is a process of conducting an examination in a test tube using tissue samples.

Human Tissues

Real human tissue samples, which can be ethically donated to science as a result of surgeries or after death, are viable alternatives for testing localized drugs. For years, research has indicated that various in vitro methods can hypothetically outperform animal testing (and cost less too), although this form of testing is likely best used for understanding toxicity within a single organ or organ system, not the entire human body.

A new human tissue testing method has emerged recently that shows promise. An in vitro skin testing model called h-CLAT recently entered use in Europe and Japan, paving the way for more techniques that don’t require animal experimentation.

In Vitro Modeling Systems

Another form of in vitro testing involves a synthetic model that can replicate human systems. While less accurate, this method is cheaper and far easier to source, although it is best used for simpler human organs like the skin. One example, the EpiDerm technology , is already widespread for cosmetic purposes. This method is currently not used for large-scale medicinal approval, but instead to test if certain people are at risk for certain diseases.

Computer Modeling

Of all the alternatives, scientists are most excited about computer modeling techniques. Advanced computer modeling, sometimes called in silica testing, can create complex models of human body systems, even accounting for irregularities like prior diseases, as well as a vast array of genetic and demographic information.

And they work better than animal models. A 2018 study found an accuracy rate of between 89 percent and 96 percent , while a 2017 study estimated the accuracy rate of one method of analysis at 96 percent : in both studies the computer models beat the animal testing experiments.

Research Using Human Volunteers

Using human volunteers seems a bit dystopian, but science has progressed a long way since the unethical days of the 20th century. For starters, in some recent drug testing human volunteers only receive a microdose of the drug and are monitored in the presence of medical professionals to ensure safety. This microdosing method is promising, but still needs more research. Other forms of human volunteer research include the safe use of fMRI imaging, which has been shown to be very effective.

Of course, ethics regarding human volunteers are critical. Scientists and researchers must take great caution not to compel participants into doing something unsafe and must mitigate risks as much as possible. Using human volunteers is also best done after one other method, like computer modeling, has been completed to mitigate risk.

Animal Testing Facts and Statistics

The majority of animals used in animal testing are exempt from the Animal Welfare Act because they are rats or mice.
Rats have great memories and demonstrate empathy for other animals.
Every year, the NIH spends nearly $20 billion on animal testing-based research.
A majority of Americans disapprove of the continued use of animal testing.

What You Can Do

Consumers who want to avoid products tested on animals can look for a “vegan” or “cruelty-free” label when purchasing cosmetic products. They can also voice their support for policies to improve animal welfare in the medical industry like the FDA Modernization Act 2.0 , which passed the U.S. Senate earlier this year.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Björn Jóhann Ólafsson is a science writer and journalist who cares deeply about understanding the natural world and her inhabitants through stories and data. He reports on the environmental footprint of the meat industry, the alternative protein sector and cultural attitudes around food. His previous bylines include the EU Observer and Elemental. He lives in Spain with his two lovebirds.

When Marine Parks Close, Whales and Dolphins Face Uncertain Future

Entertainment • 7 min read

More Law & Policy

Beagles Are Bred by the Thousands on Factory Farms, and It’s Perfectly Legal

Justice • 4 min read

New Supreme Court Case Threatens Legal Protections for Animals

Ending the Chevron doctrine could be devastating for farm animals and wildlife.

Law & Policy • 7 min read

‘The Smell of Money’ Film Is Bringing Together Environmental and Food Justice Advocates

A new documentary chronicles the damage hog farm pollution has caused communities of Eastern North Carolina.

Justice • 5 min read

What Is Climate Change and How Do We Solve It?

Climate • 10 min read

Investigation

On Organic Caviar Farms, Fish Still Suffer

Aquaculture • 4 min read

Bird Flu Has Spread to Dairy Cows in Five States

Health • 4 min read

The 11 Most Helpful Animals on Earth (Though It’s Quite a Competition)

Research • 10 min read

Most Read Today

Blog Section

The ethics of animal experimentation.

Many medical research institutions make use of non-human animals as test subjects. Animals may be subject to experimentation or modified into conditions useful for gaining knowledge about human disease or for testing potential human treatments. Because animals as distant from humans as mice and rats share many physiological and genetic similarities with humans, animal experimentation can be tremendously helpful for furthering medical science.

However, there is an ongoing debate about the ethics of animal experimentation. Some people argue that all animal experimentation should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for furthering knowledge. According to this point of view, an animal should have as much right as a human being to live out a full life, free of pain and suffering. Others argue that while it is wrong to unnecessarily abuse animals, animal experimentation must continue because of the enormous scientific resource that animal models provide. Proponents of continued animal experimentation often also point out that progress can still be made to improve the conditions of laboratory animals and they fully support efforts to improve living conditions in laboratories, to use anesthesia appropriately, and to require trained personnel to handle animals.

On closer scrutiny, there exists a wide range of positions on the debate over the ethics of animal testing. The two views mentioned above represent two common positions at the opposing ends of the spectrum. Others endorse a view closer to the middle of the spectrum. Usually, this middle view accepts experimentation on some, but not all, animals and aims to avoid unnecessary use of animals in scientific research by pursuing alternatives to animal testing.

The following sections briefly outline a few of the arguments for and against animal experimentation. They do not represent every possible argument, or even necessarily the best arguments. They also do not necessarily reflect the views of the HOPES team. They are simply our effort to review and raise awareness of the underlying issues.

The Case Against Animal Experimentation
The Case For Animal Experimentation
A Middle Ground

The Case Against Animal Experimentation ^

An important part of the debate over animal rights centers on the question of the moral status of an animal. Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status – that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals. This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal. In modern times, the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much moral status they have and what rights come with that status.

The strongest pro animal rights answer to this question would be that non-human animals have exactly the same moral status as humans and are entitled to equal treatment. The ethicists who endorse this position do not mean that animals are entitled to the very same treatment as humans; arguing that animals should have the right to vote or hold office is clearly absurd. The claim is that animals should be afforded the same level of respectful treatment as humans; in short, we should not have the right to kill animals, force them into our service, or otherwise treat them merely as means to further our own goals.

One common form of this argument claims that moral status comes from the capacity to suffer or to enjoy life. In respect to his capacity, many animals are no different than humans. They can feel pain and experience pleasure. Therefore, they should have the same moral status and deserve equal treatment.

Supporters of this type of argument frequently claim that granting animals less moral status than humans is just a form of prejudice called “speciesism.” We have an innate tendency, they say, to consider the human species more morally relevant merely because it is the group to which we belong. However, we look upon past examples of this behavior as morally condemnable. Being of a particular race or gender does not give one any grounds for declaring outsiders to be of a lower moral status. Many animal rights advocates argue similarly—that just because we are human is not sufficient grounds to declare animals less morally significant.

The Case For Animal Experimentation ^

Defenders of animal experimentation usually argue that animals cannot be considered morally equal to humans. They generally use this claim as the cornerstone of an argument that the benefits to humans from animal experimentation outweigh or “make up for” the harm done to animals. The first step in making that argument is to show that humans are more important than animals. Below, I will outline one of the more common arguments used to reach this conclusion.

Some philosophers advocate the idea of a moral community. Roughly speaking, this is a group of individuals who all share certain traits in common. By sharing these traits, they belong to a particular moral community and thus take on certain responsibilities toward each other and assume specific rights. For example, in most human moral communities all individuals have the right to make independent decisions and live autonomous lives – and with that right comes the responsibility to respect others’ independence.

Although a moral community could theoretically include animals, it frequently does not. The human moral community, for instance, is often characterized by a capacity to manipulate abstract concepts and by personal autonomy. Since most animals do not have the cognitive capabilities of humans and also do not seem to possess full autonomy (animals do not rationally choose to pursue specific life goals), they are not included in the moral community. Once animals have been excluded from the moral community, humans have only a limited obligation towards them; on this argument, we certainly would not need to grant animals all normal human rights.

If animals do not have the same rights as humans, it becomes permissible to use them for research purposes. Under this view, the ways in which experimentation might harm the animal are less morally significant than the potential human benefits from the research.

One problem with this type of argument is that many humans themselves do not actually fulfill the criteria for belonging to the human moral community. Both infants and the mentally handicapped frequently lack complex cognitive capacities, full autonomy, or even both of these traits. Are those individuals outside the human moral community? Do they lack fundamental human rights and should we use them for experimentation? One philosophical position actually accepts those consequences and argues that those humans have the exact same rights (or lack of rights) as non-human animals. However, most people are uncomfortable with that scenario and some philosophers have put forth a variety of reasons to include all humans in the human moral community. A common way to “return” excluded individuals to the human moral community is to note how close these individuals come to meeting the criteria. In fact, some of them (the infants) will surely meet all of the criteria in the future. With that in mind, the argument runs, it is best practice to act charitably and treat all humans as part of the moral community.

In summary, defenders of animal experimentation argue that humans have higher moral status than animals and fundamental rights that animals lack. Accordingly, potential animal rights violations are outweighed by the greater human benefits of animal research.

A Middle Ground ^

There is a middle ground for those who feel uncomfortable with animal experimentation, but believe that in some circumstances the good arising out of experimentation does outweigh harm to the animal. Proponents of the middle ground position usually advocate a few basic principals that they believe should always be followed in animal research.

One principle calls for the preferential research use of less complex organisms whenever possible. For example bacteria , fruit flies, and plants would be preferred over mammals. This reflects a belief in a hierarchy of moral standing with more complex animals at the top and microorganisms and plants at the bottom. A philosophical grounding for this sort of hierarchy is the “moral worth as richness of life” model. This point of view suggests that more complicated organisms have richer, more fulfilling lives and that it is the richness of the life that actually correlates with moral worth.

Another principle is to reduce animal use as far as possible in any given study. Extensive literature searches, for instance, can ensure that experiments are not unnecessarily replicated and can ensure that animal models are only used to obtain information not already available in the scientific community. Another way to reduce animal use is to ensure that studies are conducted according to the highest standards and that all information collected will be useable. Providing high quality, disease-free environments for the animals will help ensure that every animal counts. Additionally, well designed studies and appropriate statistical analysis of data can minimize the number of animals required for statistically significant results.

A third principle is to ensure the best possible treatment of the animals used in a study. This means reducing pain and suffering as much as possible. When appropriate, anesthesia should be used; additionally, studies should have the earliest possible endpoints after which animals who will subsequently experience disease or suffering can be euthanized. Also, anyone who handles the animals should be properly trained.

The “bottom line” for the middle ground position is that animal experimentation should be avoided whenever possible in favor of alternative research strategies.

For further reading:

Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal.” Ethics in Practice . LaFollette, Hugh ed. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Peter Singer is one of the best publicly known advocates of animal rights and animal equality. This philosophical essay briefly presents his views.
Fox, Michael Allen. “The Moral Community.” Ethics in Practice. LaFollette, Hugh ed. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. This essay defends animal experimentation.
Frey, R.G. “Animals and Their Medical Use.” Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Cohen, Andrew and Wellman, Christopher eds. Blackwell Publishing. 2005 In this essay Frey puts forth a view where animals do matter, but human welfare is considered more important.
Regan, Tom. “Empty Cages: Animals Rights and Vivisection.” Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Cohen, Andrew and Wellman, Christopher eds. Blackwell Publishing. 2005. This essay supports animal rights.
“Ethics and Alternatives”. Research Animal Resources. University of Minnesota. 2003. Ethics and Alternatives for Animal Use in Research and Teaching . A great resource describing some ways to minimize the use of animals in research and to practice the best standards when using animals.

– Adam Hepworth, 11-26-08

HOPES is a team of faculty and undergraduate students at Stanford University dedicated to making scientific information about Huntington’s disease (HD) more readily accessible to the public. Our goal is to survey the rapidly growing scientific literature on HD and to present this information in a web source.

We emphasize that we are neither medical professionals, nor are we affiliated with the researchers and laboratories mentioned on our pages. The information we present is intended for educational purposes only and should not be construed as offering diagnoses or recommendations. We operate as a not-for-profit public service organization, and our funding is entirely from private sources.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped

The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped

Categories: Animal Cruelty Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 1186 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

See expert comments

Words: 1186 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

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

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues

+ 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

4 pages / 1657 words

1 pages / 603 words

1 pages / 468 words

3 pages / 1351 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 Testing

Good morning. I am here today to convince you all to oppose, stop, and disengage from the cruel and unnecessary animal testing.Did you know that the lipstick, the eye shadow and the mascara we use to make ourselves look more [...]

Animal experimentation has been a subject of debate and controversy for centuries. This essay delves into the history and context of animal experimentation, its evolution over time, the arguments for and against it, and [...]

Animal testing is a controversial topic that has sparked heated debates among scientists, ethicists, and the general public. The ethical implications of using animals in scientific research are complex and multifaceted, with [...]

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically [...]

Introduction to the issue of animal testing in the cosmetic industry The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing Arguments in favor of animal testing, including potential medical advancements [...]

“Opinion and Evidence for the Need to Move Away from Animal Testing” was an article published by The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) on 2nd Nov, 2017. An article stated that how the author clearly convinces [...]

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

Jump to Main Content
Jump to Page Navigation
Jump to Site Search
Giving to LSC
Class Login
My Lonestar
About Lone Star College
Academic Departments
English Departments
LSC-North Harris English Department
Model Essays

Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing

Course Descriptions
LSC-North Harris English Faculty Resources
LSC-North Harris English Faculty and Staff
Cat5 Review Student Publication
Center for Reading and Writing
Jeffrey and Lonette Stayton Awards for Writing

Make LSC part of your story.

Five Reasons to End Animal Testing

Dr. Thomas Hartung, a well-known toxicologist at Johns Hopkins University and advocate for the development of alternatives to the use of animals, as well as a mentor to a current NAVS/IFER fellowship recipient , recently published an article in ALTEX summarizing the main limitations of experimenting on animals. As Hartung notes, “[Animal experiments] come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated.”

Following are five reasons why scientists should stop relying so heavily on animal models:

Animal experiments are not very reproducible . This often stems from lack of bias-reducing measures, poorly planned experiments, inappropriate statistical tests, poor reporting on animal attrition (why animals are dropped from studies) and poor reporting of pain relief in lab animals.
Animal experiments are expensive and time consuming. Hartung notes that “costs and duration of toxicological studies are clearly prohibitive to satisfy societal safety needs,” in large part because animals are experimented on over a long period of time, during which researchers collect and analyze a lot of data to ensure that they are not missing any harmful effects. Using other approaches, such as cell-based models, could help scientists get results faster and cheaper.
There are ethical concerns with animal experimentation. What entitles humans to experiment on animals and inflict pain upon them?
Animal experiments are not even predictive of other animal species, let alone humans. Experiments performed in rats do not predict what happens in mice. Experiments in one strain of mice may not predict what is seen in another strain. Therefore, we shouldn’t assume that animals will be able to accurately predict what happens in humans.
Animal models do not reflect human diversity . Even if animals could be predictive, to which humans would the data be accurately applied, considering the differences among humans?

Some in the scientific community have suggested investing more time and effort to improve the design of animal experiments, or even the animal models themselves, to address some of the issues raised above. But these resources would pay much higher dividends if they were directed to more human-relevant research, including work with human cell lines, stem cells and tissues, computational models, and even humans themselves.

Help NAVS support the advancement of smarter, human-relevant science that does not harm animals by making a donation today.

Source: Hartung, T. “Opinion versus evidence for the need to move away from animal testing,” ALTEX , 2017

Is animal research ethical?

Posted: by John Meredith on 16/02/22

Moral status of animals

In the past, the moral status of animals did not merit a great deal of consideration; raising questions about whether humans were entitled to exploit animals would have struck most people as quaint or absurd. The great moral philosopher Rene Descartes, for example, the man famous for the phrase cogito ergo sum - ‘I think therefore I am’ - believed that animals had no inner life at all, that they were essentially as lifeless as clockwork dolls, incapable of emotion, self-awareness, or even feeling pain.

Such ideas seem laughable to us now. We take it for granted that most animals experience pain and many have complex emotional lives that can depend on relationships with other animals and which can deliver feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. Since Descartes’ day, the growing study of animal behaviour makes this seem obvious, and cleverly designed experiments have confirmed what has been learned from observation, forcing us to acknowledge that sentience – inner life – exists in a great number of other species and sometimes at a very high level.

But what implications does all this have for the moral consideration of animals? How should it affect the way we treat them? Philosopher Peter Singer, whose book Animal Liberation transformed the public debate on animal welfare, believes it should have deep and wide-reaching consequences. Singer argues that it is wrong to inflict harm on a person not because of any cosmic or biblical law about harm but because it is against that person’s interests as they themselves understand them. Considering moral questions in that light, he argues, explodes any idea that we can justify distinctions between individuals based on their sex or race, distinctions that have been passionately defended over many centuries. There are many differences between people of all kinds including, of course, both sexes, but they all have interests that are alike: an interest in avoiding pain or hunger for example. There is no rational basis for preferring the interests of any particular individual, or people of one race or sex class over those of another, that is simply racism and sexism. This is an idea has become widely accepted, if only recently, and it doesn’t seem particularly radical to us today, but Singer takes the idea a step further.

If there is no non-arbitrary reason to prefer the interests of one human animal over another, how can there be any good reason to prefer the interests of a human animal over a non-human animal? Claims that humans are of special moral interest because of their intelligence or capacity for language or any of the many other things that have been suggested cut no ice. A less intelligent human has as much interest in avoiding pain as a mathematical genius does, and the same goes for a dog, or a mouse, or a fish. To deny this, says Singer is to make a moral mistake akin to sexism or racism and he calls this way of thinking speciesism .

One objection to the argument from speciesism is that it implies that there can never be a reason to prefer the welfare of a human being over any other animal where considerations of interest are the same. This strikes most people as counter-intuitive to say the least. Jean Kazez, philosopher and animal rights activist, suggests a thought experiment. Imagine a dedicated vegan responsible for the care of ten young children. It so happens that famine strikes and the children are all in danger of starvation except that our vegan carer owns a cow. Would it be morally acceptable for the vegan to stick by her principles and refuse to slaughter the cow to save the children? If the answer is no, then there seems to be some problem with the speciesist position. It would probably not be considered acceptable to slaughter one of the children to feed the others, after all. So, our intuition is that there must be some foundation for our moral preference for a human over an animal, at least in some extreme conditions. Perhaps the intuition is that there is moral value in feelings of kinship because this is a necessary feeling in order to be a fully healthy human, to flourish as a human being. If that is the case, then, kinship, for humans, is a kind of interest in the Singer sense and one that overrides other interests. That may be why we don’t find it reprehensible when a mother prefers the welfare of her child over that of another.

The moral value of ‘kinship’ overrides speciesism

If kinship carries moral weight, then the speciesist argument loses ground and a possible justification for preferring animals over human beings in research emerges. Medical research is an attempt to save human lives and reduce human suffering (it has similar benefits for animal as well, of course, but we can set that aside for now, for the sake of simplicity). If, as scientists argue, this can only be achieved with the use of an animal model, then we are morally entitled to prefer the use of a non-human animal, so long as kinship has the moral value we are claiming for it and the suffering and distress of the animals is minimised as much as possible.

But what if this is all just a complicated exercise in justifying what we want to do anyway, what if our moral intuitions are just wrong? It is easy to imagine a Singerian arguing, in the case of our starving children and vegan nanny, that the cow has as much moral standing as any of the others: it has the same interest in living and not suffering the pain of hunger as the others and, what’s more, it may be better able to survive the famine given its ability to eat vegetation that cannot sustain humans. In that case, it seems the advocate of speciesism must argue that they all should starve together in the interests of admirable intellectual rigour, even if it feels a little hard on the children.

Using utility to resolve moral conflicts

As usual, though, the situation is more complicated. Peter Singer and his followers recognise that there is often a conflict of moral interests and so we need a framework for finding a resolution. This framework should not be ad hoc or arbitrary or based on scripture or any other culturally specific text or tradition but should be rational. Within Singer’s argument the rational moral grounding is provided by utilitarianism the ethical doctrine first proposed by Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century. Utilitarianism argues that when two actions are in conflict, the morally correct one is the one that delivers the most happiness for the largest number (Bentham called this ‘utility’ for obscure reasons). In other words, the morality of an action is decided by its consequences, not by the intentions of the actor or anything else. Applied to the problem of our starving infants and their increasingly paranoid cow, a utilitarian might argue that killing the cow is justified despite it having a similar interest in living to the children because the slaughter would maximise future happiness (utility). If they all die, happiness would be at zero, and if a child was sacrificed to save the others, that would reduce overall happiness because of the distress of the survivors at their loss, the suffering endured by the child selected to die, and the indifference of the cow.

How do you measure happiness?

Problems with utilitarian ways of thinking immediately suggest themselves: how can happiness be measured? How can the ‘happiness’ of a mouse, for example, be weighed against a person, or any other animal? Must we consider a well-intentioned action that has bad outcomes immoral instead of just unfortunate? The literature goes into all these problems and more at great depth, but for our purposes, it is at least clear that a utilitarian moral framework allows for the use of research animals in some circumstances. The human happiness delivered by a successful medical treatment can be great and long lasting while any pain or distress caused to the experimental animals is kept to a minimum and is of very limited duration. In the utilitarian scales, this tips firmly towards an ethical justification of animal research. It is a surprise to many people that Peter Singer, the father of the modern animal rights movement, comes to the same conclusion, although he argues for stricter controls and more work to reduce and mitigate the use of animals. Even without appealing to concepts such as kinship, in other words, the concept of speciesism, perhaps the most formidable intellectual weapon aimed against animal research by protest groups, does not carry the day. It is perfectly possible to allow the moral value of an animal’s interests and still justify its use in research – even if that research causes the animal harm or distress – so long as the future outcomes maximise happiness.

Animal rights arguments

The only significant ethical argument against animal research that remains is based on the idea of rights. Just as humans have inalienable rights, the argument goes, so do animals. According to this view, the use of animals for research can never be justified for exactly the same reasons that we cannot justify using humans. But argument from rights has many more problems than argument from interests: from where are rights derived? What specific rights do animals have? Should rights be protected even when this is damaging to the welfare of the animal? This last point is perhaps the most salient. If we allow an animal has a right to its freedom, say, not to be kept in captivity (one of the key rights usually claimed by activists), then we are not only committed to ending all ownership of animals, but to the immediate release of all domestic animals into the wild even if that were to the detriment of the animals’ welfare as it surely would be. The problems mount at every step. How can it be possible to reconcile a vole’s right to life with a falcon’s right to eat? What possible mechanism could be constructed to resolve such conflicts and how much irreparable harm to natural ecosystems would follow if we built one? Without answers to questions like this it is hard to see animal rights arguments as much more than rhetoric.

Maximising future happiness and minimising present suffering is enough for an ethical justification of animal research

The case for ethical animal research, then, does not need as much building as it might at first appear. None of the major philosophical arguments for animal welfare exclude the possibility of ethical animal research. The harm that is done to animals in well-regulated research environments serves a higher moral purpose: the reduction of death and suffering by disease and other disorders. Of course, this is only true if pain, suffering and distress, are minimised – as they are through animal welfare regulations in the UK and EU for example. These regulations also require the application of the principles of the 3Rs – but it is quite obvious, all other things being equal, that the use of a mouse in an investigation into cancer development, for example, will create less suffering than using a person for the same purposes.

So, a utilitarian calculation of maximising future happiness and minimising present suffering is enough for an ethical justification of animal research even for tough minded opponents of animal exploitation such as Professor Singer. But maybe justification is the wrong word.

Are we not morally obliged to use animals in research?

If, as the biological sciences are almost unanimous in claiming, we cannot have new medicines without some animal research, and if there are hundreds of devastating human illnesses that will continue to cause misery, pain, and heartache without those new treatments, should we not think of animal research as a moral obligation instead? It is difficult science to do, both technically and emotionally, but if we choose not to carry it out, we are effectively choosing to allow human suffering to continue in the future that our efforts today have the potential to reduce or eliminate. We don’t know which suffering we will be successful in mitigating when, but we can be certain that progress is being made. Remove animal research and we don’t not remove suffering, we simply transfer it from the animals now (where it is carefully controlled and minimised, very often to nothing) to future humans. That is the heart of the ethical case for animal research and one that needs to be better addressed by those who oppose it.

Last edited: 7 April 2022 12:16

Back to News

The ethics of animal research

Animal rights activism and extremism

Harms and benefits of research

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Get the latest articles and news from Understanding Animal Research in your email inbox every month. For more information, please see our privacy policy .

IELTS Scores
Life Skills Test
Find a Test Centre
Alternatives to IELTS
General Training
Academic Word List
Topic Vocabulary
Collocation
Phrasal Verbs
Writing eBooks
Reading eBook
All eBooks & Courses
Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments for and against animal testing, and then give your own conclusions on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing.

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet.

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

Click on the HTML link code below.
Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

All Lessons
Band Score Calculator
Writing Feedback
Speaking Feedback
Teacher Resources
Free Downloads
Recent Essay Exam Questions
Books for IELTS Prep
Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Essay: Loving Wildlife and Nature

May 10, 24 02:36 AM

Paraphrasing in the IELTS Test: Speaking and Writing

May 03, 24 10:26 AM

Fillers for IELTS Speaking: Avoid 'Eh', Uhm', 'You know'.

Apr 27, 24 05:48 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for interesting animal testing topics to research and write about? This field is truly controversial and worth studying!

🌶️ Titles: Catchy & Creative
🐶 Essay: How to Write
🏆 Best Essay Examples
📌 Good Topics to Research
🎯 Most Interesting Topics to Write about

❓ Animal Testing Research Questions

In your animal testing essay, you might want to explore the historical or legal perspective, focus on the issue of animal rights, or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of animal testing in medicine, pharmacology, or cosmetic industry. We’ve gathered the most creative and catchy animal testing titles and added top animal testing essay examples. There are also useful tips on making and outline, formulating a thesis, and creating a hook sentence for your animal testing essay.

🌶️ Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

What would life be like without animal testing?
Animal testing: the cruelest experiments.
AWA: why does not it protect all animals?
What if animals experimented on humans?
In the skin of a guinea pig: a narrative essay.
Opposing animal testing: success stories.
Animal-tested products: should they be destroyed?
What have we gained from experiments on animals?
Animal testing and cancer research: past and present.

🐶 Animal Testing Essay: How to Write

Animal testing has been an acute problem for a long time. Scientists and pharmaceutical firms use this approach to test cosmetics, foods, and other products people use daily.

Essays on animal testing are important because they highlight the significance of the problem. Writing outstanding animal testing essays requires extensive research and dedication.

We have prepared some do’s and don’ts for your excellent essay. But first, you should select a topic for your paper. Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from:

The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing
Animal testing should (not) be banned
How animal testing affects endangered species
The history and consequences of animal testing
The controversy associated with animal testing
Animal Bill of Rights: Pros and cons
Is animal testing necessary?

Remember that these animal testing essay titles are just the ideas for your paper. You are free to select other relevant titles and topics for discussion, too. Once you have selected the problem for your essay, you can start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing about animal testing:

Do extensive preliminary research on the issue you have selected. You should be aware of all the problems associated with your questions, its causes, and consequences. Ask your professor about the sources you can use. Avoid relying on Wikipedia and personal blogs as your primary sources of information.
Develop a well-organized outline and think of how you will structure your paper. Think of the main animal testing essay points and decide how you can present them in the paper. Remember to include introductory and concluding sections along with several body paragraphs.
Start your paper with a hooking sentence. An animal testing essay hook should grab the reader’s attention. You can present an interesting question or statistics in this sentence.
Include a well-defined thesis statement at the end of the introductory section.
Your reader should understand the issue you are discussing. Explain what animal testing is, provide arguments for your position, and support them with evidence from your research.
Discuss alternative perspectives on the issue if you are working on a persuasive essay. At the same time, you need to show that your opinion is more reliable than the opposing ones.
Remember that your paper should not be offensive. Even if you criticize animal testing, stick to the formal language and provide evidence of why this practice is harmful.

There are some important points you should avoid while working on your paper. Here are some important don’ts to remember:

Avoid making claims if you cannot reference them. Support your arguments with evidence from the literature or credible online sources even if you are writing an opinion piece. References will help the reader to understand that your viewpoint is reliable.
Do not go over or below the word limit. Stick to your professor’s instructions.
Avoid copying the essays you will find online. Your paper should be plagiarism-free.
Avoid making crucial grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the word choice and sentence structures. Check the paper several times before sending it for approval. If you are not sure whether your grammar is correct, ask a friend to look through the paper for you.

Do not forget to look at some of our free samples that will help you with your paper!

Animal Testing Hook Sentence

Your animal testing essay should start with a hook – an opening statement aiming to grab your reader’s attention. A good idea might be to use an impressive fact or statistics connected to experiments on animals:

More than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories each year.
Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover 99% animals used in experiments: according to it, rats, birds, reptiles, and fish are not animals.
More than 50% adults in the US are against animal testing.

🏆 Best Animal Testing Essay Examples

Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations […]
Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research? It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from […]
Cosmetic Testing on Animals The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type […]
The Debate on Animal Testing The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal […]
Animal Testing and Environmental Protection While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern […]
Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry Animal testing is the inescapable reality of medicine and industry. However, between human suffering and animal suffering, the former is more important.
Preclinical Testing on Animals The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent […]
Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments While discussing the use of animals in medical research according to the consequentialist perspective, it is important to state that humans’ preferences cannot be counted higher to cause animals’ suffering; humans and animals’ preferences need […]
Animal Testing: History and Arguments Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against In some cases, the animals are not given any painkillers because their application may alter the effect of the medication which is investigated.
Animal Testing From Medical and Ethical Viewpoints Striving to discover and explain the peculiarities of body functioning, already ancient Greeks and Romans resorted to vivisecting pigs; the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment era witnessed animal testing becoming the leading trend and a […]
Negative Impacts of Animal Testing To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions.
Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice Such acts of violence could be partially excused by the necessity to test medications that are developed to save human lives however, this kind of testing is even more inhumane as it is ineffective in […]
Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel. […]
Animal Testing for Scientific Research Despite the fact that the present-day science makes no secret of the use of animals for research purposes, not many people know what deprivation, pain, and misery those animals have to experience in laboratories.
Animal Testing and Ethics I believe it is also difficult to develop efficient legislation on the matter as people have different views on animal research and the line between ethical and unethical is blurred in this area.
Animal Testing: History and Ethics Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis […]
Animal Testing Effects on Psychological Investigation In this context, ethical considerations remain a central theme in psychological research.”Ethics in research refers to the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information […]
Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations It is done on a molecular level by synthesizing DNA, generating sequences and then inserting the received product into the organism which will be the carrier of the outcome. Another possibility is that the time […]
Animal Testing: Why It Is Still Being Used The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing.
Effects of Animal Testing and Alternatives Another challenge to the proponents of animal testing is related to dosage and the time line for a study. Animal rights values rebuff the notion that animals should have an importance to human beings in […]
Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation In spite of the fact that it is possible to find the arguments to support the idea of using animals in experiments, animal experimentation cannot be discussed as the ethical procedure because animals have the […]
Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business This means that both humans and animals have rights that need to be respected, and that is what brings about the many dilemmas that are experienced in this field.
Should animals be used for scientific research? Therefore, considering the benefits that have been accrued from research activities due to use of animals in scientific research, I support that animals should be used in scientific research.
Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved The present paper argues that it is ethically justified to use animals in research settings if the goals of the research process are noble and oriented towards the advancement of human life.
Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products.
Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
Use of Animals in Biological Testing Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals.
Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law Vaccines and treatment regimes for various diseases that previously led to the death of humans were all discovered through research on animals.
Experimentation on Animals However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.
Psychoactive Drug Testing on Animals The alterations in behavioral traits of animals due to psychoactive drugs are primarily attributed to the changes in the brain functions or inhibition of certain brain components in animals which ultimately translates to changes in […]
Negative Impacts of Animal Testing In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause […]

📌 Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing In The Cosmetics Industry
Animal Testing – Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted
Essay Animal Testing and In Vitro Testing as a Replacement
Animal Testing : A Better Knowledge Of Human Body
The Importance Of Animal Testing For Evaluating Consumer Safety
The Issues on Animal Testing and the Alternative Procedures to Avoid the Use of the Inhuman Experimentation
An Alternative to the Harsh and Unnecessary Practices of Animal Testing for Products, Drugs, Chemicals and Other Research
The Unethical Use of Animals and the Need to Ban Animal Testing for Medical Research Purposes in the United States
An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing for the Purpose of Clinical Research
An Argument Against Animal Testing and the Banning of the Practice in the United States
The Debate About the Ethics of Animal Testing and Its Effects on Us
An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing as Beneficial to Human Health Research
Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
The Principles of the Animal Testing From the Human Perspective
The Ethical Issues on the Practice of Animal Testing to Test Cosmetics and Drugs
Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Cruelty

🎯 Most Interesting Animal Testing Topics to Write about

An Argument Against Animal Testing of Consumer Products and Drugs
The Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
How Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical
Ways To Improve Animal Welfare After Premising The Animal Testing
Animal Testing – Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong?
Animal Testing And Its Impact On The Environment
Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
Animal Testing And People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
A History and the Types of Animal Testing in the Medical Area
Argumentation on Medical Benefits of Animal Testing
An Analysis of the Concept of Animal Testing Which Lowers the Standard of Human Life
Is The Humane Society International Gave For Animal Testing
A Discussion of Whether Animal Testing Is Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
The Ethics Of Animal Testing For Vaccine Development And Potential Alternatives
The Good and Bad of Human Testing and Animal Testing
What Should the Government Do About Animal Testing?
Why Does Animal Testing Lower Our Standard of Living?
Should Animals Be Used in Research?
Why Should Animal Testing Be Accepted in the World?
How Does Technology Impact Animal Testing?
Why Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?
Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
Can the Animal Testing Done to Find Cures for Diseases Be Humane?
Does Animal Testing Really Work?
Why Can’t Alternatives Like Computers Replace Research Animals?
Should Animal Testing Continue to Test Cures for Human Diseases?
How Does Animal Testing Effect Medicine?
Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing?
Why Can Animal Testing Save Our Lives?
Is Stem Cell Research Beginning of the End of Animal Testing?
Do Beauty Products Suffer From Negative Publicity if They Conduct Trials on Animals?
Should Medicine Trials Be Conducted?
Can Results of Animal Testing Be Generalized to Adults?
What Are the Origin and History of Animal Testing?
Why Are Animals Needed to Screen Consumer Products for Safety When Products Tested by Alternative Methods, Are Available?
How Much Does an Animal Suffer Due to Testing?
What Is the Effectiveness of Animal Rights Groups in Stopping Animal Testing?
How Do We Learn From Biomedical Research Using Animals?
Who Cares for Animals in Research?
How Do Laboratory Animal Science Professionals Feel About Their Work?
Why Are There Increasing Numbers of Mice, Rats, and Fish Used in Research?
How Can We Be Sure Lost or Stolen Pets Are Not Used in Research?
Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/

"105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
Animal Welfare Ideas
Bioethics Titles
Wildlife Ideas
Extinction Research Topics
Hunting Questions
Genetic Engineering Topics
Zoo Research Ideas

Why animal testing is bad essay

Using animals as test subjects for making medicines and cures to treat new diseases is wrong and ethically unacceptable, it's cruel and inhumane putting the animals lives at risk while still having a low probability of it being effective on humans.

Given that most labs in major beauty companies use animals as test subjects for creating new products trying to convince us that it's still better than using people instead, is a very wrong path to take. As indicated by Humane Society International, creatures utilized in trials are normally exposed to coercively feeding, constrained inward breath, sustenance and water hardship, delayed times of physical restriction, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.

"The Draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days, so they cannot blink away the products being tested. In addition to that, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2016 that 71,370 animals suffered pain during experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,272 nonhuman primates, 5,771 rabbits, 24,566 guinea pigs, and 33,280 hamsters.

Order custom essay Why animal testing is bad essay with free plagiarism report

While you would think that animals would have the most reliable results due to our very similar genetic structure, it has been proven to be wrong. Animals are very different from human beings and actually make poor test subjects. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Paul Furlong, Professor of Clinical Neuroimaging at Aston University (UK), states that "it's very hard to create an animal model that even equates closely to what we're trying to achieve in the human." Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats.

Cite this Page

Why animal testing is bad essay. (2020, Aug 05). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/why-animal-testing-is-bad-essay/

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

More related essays

Animal testing is the act of using non-uman animals in research, development projects or scientific experiments. Hundreds of millions of animals are being used annually for scientific research, but because.

Testing on Animals is Morally Wrong In today’s world, large corporations seem to have decided that animal testing is an acceptable way to produce products that are safe for human.

Now ladies and gentlemen, I would like you guys to have a think about this, without animal research, how long would it take for us to have a breakthrough in.

When shopping at a store, no one ever thinks when he or she buys makeup, cleaning products, deodorant or lotion, that it has potentially hurt an innocent animal. In fact,.

Animal Testing People argue that animal testing kills to many animals. 20 million animals are used for animal testing each year. 90 percent of them are rodents such as rats.

This essay is centered towards people who think that there is no good reason to do animal testing. Medicine testing on animals necessary. The animal rights organization, People for the.

There are millions of animals including rabbits, guinea pigs, mice and rats continue to suffer and die an agonizing death behind the companies who refuses to give up the practice.

Argumentative Topics The Ethical Research of Animal Testing Name Animal testing has been a hot topic of discussion in society for many years. The debate is whether or not animal.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Save time and let our verified experts help you.

Animal Testing Is Bad Essay

“Nine out of ten drugs that pass animal studies fails in humans” (Moore 2). Many patients in the world of medicine need drugs with low risk factors. Animal experiment is becoming a thing of the past and for good reasons. The experiments are no longer answering the scientists questions, but when the products does work on animals it is never going to be hundred percent for humans. Animal experimentation is wrong because animals can register pain just like humans, the medication is not reliable, and money is lost when it is ineffective. Scientist are intentionally infecting animals with diseases, force-feeding chemicals, blinding, burning, mutilating, and leaving them to suffer (Moore 1). There some actions that can be taken to reduce the amount of animal experiment that is being done. The three R’s research replacement, reduction, and refinement (Conlee 1). Scientist can develop a bond with their subject and begin to care to for the animal subject. Scientists like Sean Hamill who develop a …show more content…

Scientists are not only hurting animals in the process but also putting patients’ in danger. “(W) e have cured mice of cancer for decades”...”It simply didn’t work on humans” (Moore2). It is just a poor predictor of their effect on humans (Hamil 2). Our world has been introduced to so many new methods as to where we can simulate human’s reaction to different experiments. Making a new and safe environment would not only help the animals, but also put less emotional stress on the scientists. Only about seventy percent of the time animals experiment is reliable (Hamil 1). Many forms of medication used for animal research are relabeled or pulled off the shelf because they have sicken or killed a human patient (Moore 2). The experiments just fell far short of expectations (Conlee 1). When the medication are pulled, money is lost in the making and canceling the

Scientific Boundaries In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

Scientist have been overstepping boundaries in many parts of the scientific world, one of these being animal testing. Animal testing is when scientist test on animals and inject them or mutate their genes for a human gain, typically with no gain for the animal. The National Library of Medicine posted an article on the flaws and harms of animal experimentation, these flaws can be put in these, “...three major conditions undermine this confidence and explain why animal experimentation, regardless of the disease category studied, fails to reliably inform human health: (1) the effects of the laboratory environment and other variables on study outcomes, (2) disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, and (3) species differences in physiology and genetics.” The first condition being the influence of laboratory procedures and environments on experimental results. The conditions in these experiments show that, “animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives.

Annotated Bibliography On Animal Testing

-Scientists have a specific responsibility to evade unnecessarily and minimize the pain in the treatments (replacement reduction refinement 3Rs). (Gannon,2007,p.519,para.4). Source 3 The ethics of animal research (Simon festing and Robin Wilkinson) -Implementation of laws that enables people to know more about the researches -The conducted regulated and controlled animal researches in addition to the implementation of the 3Rs and the use of compute models, human cell lines helped to lower our reliance on animals ” Approximately 2.7 million regulated animal procedures were conducted in 2003 in the UK—half the number performed 30 years ago”(Festing &Wilkinson,2007,p.528,para.3). -There exist solution to reduce animal testing like the use of cell culture based tests and Microdosing techniques , the inherent limitation of some non animal tests, and good experimental design and many others techniques like cooling and magnetic resonance thathelps to reduce the use of animals.

Should Animals Be Used In Flowers For Algernon By Daniel Keys

There is much controversy over whether or not animals should be used to test new procedures and medications. I personally believe that animal testing is crucial to scientific development. Every life lost is a tragedy but as seen in the story, Flowers for Algernon, by Daniel Keys, it will help us determine what will happen to a human test subjects without human losses. In this essay I will support my belief that animal research is important to human survival and is worth the risk. Animal research has played a vital part in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade.

Down With Animal Testing Is Inhumane

Down With Animal Testing There are certain things about animal testing that the community doesn’t know. Some people know what happens to those animals and they don’t want to face what happens. The inhumane treatment of animals used for research is well documented. There are many pros and cons considering the use of the animals in medical research. Animals shouldn’t be used for testing because it’s inhumane and it will make the population go down.

The Ineffectiveness Of Animal Testing

Smith, Wesley J. "The Grim Good of Animal Research." www.firstthings.com (18 Oct. 2013). Rpt.

Why Animal Experimentation Is Unethical

In “Animal Testing is Bad Science” states that “The Federal Drug Administration has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal test fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.” This shows that doing experiments on animals are unreliable and do not always have the same effect on humans. In addition, animal experimentation is unethical and unreliable and it puts the animals in

Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

Humanity has a history of experimentation on animals and death is what will come of it if animals continue to be treated inhumanely. On a daily basis animals are removed from their natural habitat and taken to labs to be tested on for human products. Animal experimentation has become a very popular method of research and testing. This procedure is most common in the United States and European countries, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom being the most popular.

Persuasive Essay Why Animal Testing Is Wrong

Although the experimentation of animals has furthered medical knowledge, it should not be allowed because it is brutal and animals are unable to give their approval. In order to do a study on humans it must be authorized by them, where animals are unable to give consent, which strikes questions in the world of science on whether this is morally acceptable. Although animal experimentation can result in saving the lives of millions, many find it to be cruel and unjust. Seeing as animals are unable to speak for themselves, they are still able to express their emotions through their behavior.

Should Animal Testing Be Illegal Essay

Animals have similar anatomy to humans, but it is still vastly different. What works on an animal could have a totally different effect on humans. For example, according to the FDA, 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 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide. This proves that medical testing on animals isn’t necessarily beneficial considering the physiological differences between man and animal. But that’s not the only case of medical testing gone wrong.

Argumentative Essay On Death Row Inmates

There is empirical evidence showing that animal “models” are not accurate and cannot be relied upon for safety testing and disease research, therefore medical experimentation on humans is more effective in clinical trials toward the discovery of cures for human diseases the medical experimentation on animals. When talking about testing on animals and not humans, the reality stands in the way of realizing that regulatory authorities are demanding to test on at least two different animal species before a drug is entered human trials. Even with today's testing standards, the scientists who found the morning sickness drug, would not likely have detected its crippling effects when they tested on rats and mice because humans are not two-pound

Animal Testing Flaws

Animal experimentation is a very noteworthy subject that has created quite a stir amongst the world. Anything from monkeys becoming anemic due to starvation to puppies with open sores from a new topical cream to relieve itching; animal experimentation is something that has been around since 129 AD. Testing human diseases or medicines on animals is factually not accurate, considering that there are so many differences between a human and a non-human animal. According to PETA, ASPCA, The Humane Society, and the article The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation by Aysha Akhtar, they explain that animal experimentation can be avoided and is an unnecessary step in today’s testing. Most humans typically care for non-human animals and take

Persuasive Essay On Animal Testing

Imagine an enraged animal rights activist charging toward a scientist in a white lab coat, desperate to free the little mice that are being used as test subjects. Although comical, this scene may be quite accurate when describing the passion that animal lovers have when it comes to the touchy subject of animal testing. For centuries, animal testing has been used in the medical research field, however many are now beginning to question whether it is ethical. Millions of animals are killed per year due to animal testing, so is this practice worth banning? Animal testing is a controversial subject, with supporters pointing out the medical advances that have stemmed from animal research and animal rights activists declaring it cruel and immoral.

Argumentative Essay: Should Animal Testing Be Banned?

It is true that animal testing requires a lot of investment. Not only that money is spent on advanced technologies, it is also spent to pay for scientists’ expertise on this particular field. In order for the scientists to do their research, they need suitable equipment and substances. Every year, the National institutes of Health finances between $12 billion to $14.5 billion on animal testing as indicated in a study done by the government (Bastach, 2013). Besides, scientists need to consider the fact that animals need to be sheltered, fed and cared for to keep them alive.

Why Is Animal Testing Wrong

Humans use many tests to check the reliability and safety of products such as medications and cosmetics, and specific types of testing use inhumane methods to produce results. Finding new medical treatments is extremely important, but sometimes people abuse their rights and resort to unnecessary and dangerous tactics to find solutions. Animal testing is a practice of brutality that is forced upon millions of animals worldwide. Out of all the reasons to explain why this practice is wrong, the most important has to be that it is cruel.

Animal Testing Argument

As a result of their cruel action the lab ended up being closed (Ericson, 2014). Moreover, there are insignificant similarities between humans and animals that make them poor testing subjects. It is imperative to note that human beings react differently to drugs as compared to animals; therefore, if the use of animals in experiments persists, they may not derive the most desirable outcome (Webster, 2014). Despite the fact that mammals and humans have some similarities in the body structure, they react differently to some medicines. For example, guinea pigs die after consuming Penicillin and cats die from Aspirin (Burnett, 2009).

More about Animal Testing Is Bad Essay

IMAGES

The Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing: A Comprehensive Examination Free
😍 Speech against animal testing. Persuasive speech against animal
Animal Testing Argumentative Essay
Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned: 7 Reasons It Has To Stop
Animal testing is bad essay in 2021
Animal Testing and Experimentation Free Essay Example

VIDEO

Why Animal feels so DIFFERENT?
Animal Testing
Why animal testing should be banned (beginner/intermediate)
Does desensitisation cause acceptance of animal testing & suffering?
1000 Crore Lading
A short video speech presentation for the topic "Why Animal Testing must be Banned"

COMMENTS

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 ...
The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation
Introduction. Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry. 1 Nonhuman animal (hereafter "animal") experimentation falls under two categories: basic (i.e., investigation of basic biology and human disease) and applied (i.e., drug research and development and toxicity and safety testing).
The failures of animal testing
Killed. A 2019 Ipsos MORI report revealed a growing shift in attitudes towards animal experiments in the UK with two thirds of those surveyed concerned about the use of animals in research, and more people disagreeing with the use of dogs (86 percent against), monkeys (86 percent against) and pigs (79 percent against) in tests, even if it ...
Animal Testing: History and Arguments
A significant milestone in the history of animal protection legislation was the introduction of the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876 in Great Britain. This law was promoted by Charles Darwin who, despite being a biologist and a scientist, was against vivisection. In the 1860s, the movements against animal testing occurred in the USA.
Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed?
Animal Testing: Conclusion. Animal testing is a helpful phenomenon in biological, medical, and other scientific investigations demanding its incorporation. The phenomenon is helpful, viable, and should be embraced despite the opposing opinions. Animal testing helps in developing effective, safe, viable, qualitative, and less toxic drugs.
Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?
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 ...
Negative Impacts of Animal Testing Argumentative Essay
As science develops with technology people need to stand up and fight for the rights of these animals, which will be condemned to the path of death where they have no voice to determine how they will be treated. This paper seeks to bring out the negative issues associated with animal testing. Animal testing should be abolished as it is immoral ...
Argumentative Essay The Ethics of Animal Testing
The debate over the ethics of animal testing is complex and multifaceted, with passionate arguments on both sides. In this essay, I will explore the ethical implications of animal testing and argue that it is not justifiable in most cases. By examining the historical context of animal testing, the current state of the debate, and the ethical ...
What Is Animal Testing? Is It Cruel and What Are the Alternatives?
Vertebrates. Using vertebrates in research is a primary method by which scientists test new drugs and procedures prior to applying them to human subjects. Many vertebrates in the United States—such as dogs, cats, and primates—have their welfare protected, at least partially, by the Animal Welfare Act.
Should Animal Testing Be Banned: a Comprehensive Analysis
The issue of whether animal testing should be banned has sparked intense debate among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and animal rights advocates. This essay aims to analyze the arguments both for and against banning animal testing, shedding light on the complex ethical and practical considerations involved.
Animal Testing
Con 1 Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means," according to Humane Society ...
Explainer: What Is Animal Testing?
This is a difficult question to answer, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture only counts certain species of animals in its annual review of animal testing. Mice and rats specifically bred for testing purposes are not counted because they do not fall under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act.. However, it's been estimated that at least 50 million animals are used in the U.S. every year.
The Ethics of Animal Experimentation
However, there is an ongoing debate about the ethics of animal experimentation. Some people argue that all animal experimentation should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for furthering knowledge. According to this point of view, an animal should have as much right as a human being to live out a full life, free of pain ...
The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped
The essay "The Reasons Why Animal Testing Should Be Stopped" provides a clear and concise argument against animal testing. The organization is effective, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The focus is consistent throughout the essay, with each paragraph supporting the main argument. The sentence structure and grammar are ...
Why Animal Testing is Bad?
Animals have foreign chemicals poured onto shaved skin and into eyes. This causes them a lot of pain, suffering, and distress. These experiments can cause animals to become permanently brain damaged, blind, deaf, and ruins their ability to live normally. Although they are not humans, they have rights too.
Save the Animals: Stop Animal Testing
Using animals in research and to test the safety of products has been a topic of heated debate for decades. According to data collected by F. Barbara Orlans for her book, In the Name of Science: Issues in Responsible Animal Experimentation, sixty percent of all animals used in testing are used in biomedical research and product-safety testing (62). ). People have different feelings for animals ...
Why End Animal Testing?
As Hartung notes, " [Animal experiments] come with shortcomings, and their true contribution is often overrated.". Following are five reasons why scientists should stop relying so heavily on animal models: Animal experiments are not very reproducible. This often stems from lack of bias-reducing measures, poorly planned experiments ...
Is animal testing ethical?
Animal rights arguments. The only significant ethical argument against animal research that remains is based on the idea of rights. Just as humans have inalienable rights, the argument goes, so do animals. According to this view, the use of animals for research can never be justified for exactly the same reasons that we cannot justify using humans.
IELTS Animal Testing Essay
Animal Testing Essay. You should spend about 40 minutes on this task. Write about the following topic: Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue. Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge. Write at least 250 words.
20 Animal Testing Articles to Support Your Persuasive Essay
15. To Kill a Lab Rat. Many animals used in testing are euthanized after experiments by being forced to inhale carbon dioxide. Animals feel distress during this process, and this article reports that labs, because of the pain and discomfort felt by animals, are being asked to use anesthesia.
105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples
Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from: The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing. Animal testing should (not) be banned. How animal testing affects endangered species. The history and consequences of animal testing.
Why animal testing is bad essay (300 Words)
Why animal testing is bad essay. Using animals as test subjects for making medicines and cures to treat new diseases is wrong and ethically unacceptable, it's cruel and inhumane putting the animals lives at risk while still having a low probability of it being effective on humans. Given that most labs in major beauty companies use animals as ...
Animal Testing Is Bad Essay
Animal Testing Is Bad Essay. "Nine out of ten drugs that pass animal studies fails in humans" (Moore 2). Many patients in the world of medicine need drugs with low risk factors. Animal experiment is becoming a thing of the past and for good reasons. The experiments are no longer answering the scientists questions, but when the products does ...