Animals are essential to humans because they provide food, companionship, labor, and also transport. They occupy both land and sea with humans and therefore help to sustain the plant. Animals deserve to be respected by human beings and receive protection from any form of abuse, mistreatment, or unnecessary torture, such as testing (Park & Valentino, 2019). Animal testing has a severely detrimental impact on their health, while other, more ethical alternatives exist; therefore, it is important to ban the process.
Banning animal testing will help to protect them from risky experiences that may lead to death or infection, contrary to animal rights law. Although some testing processes follow the animal rights laws during the process, animal welfare groups survey indicate that most scientific researchers do not follow these rules because they regard them as inferior species (De Cássia Maria Garcia et al., 2018). Laws banning the practice will help to minimize the exposure of animals to these unnecessary risks. Preservation of the life of animals is vital to the sustainable world, thus banning the practice goes a long towards achieving this goal.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The use of animals for testing is bad science and cruel behavior. The results from animal tests cannot be reliably used in humans because of the difference in their genes. Humans are unique species, and only methods that use human cells can provide accurate information about the impact of a particular product or substance on humans. Tests on animals, therefore, is unnecessary and very cruel because animals are not immune to pain and suffering these processes cause on them. It is an unnecessary evil that the law must ban, like the way various countries in Europe are doing to ensure that they protect animals from these inhuman acts.
Animal testing does not provide any reliable results, and in most cases, only very few drugs are approved as a result of animal testing. The genes of animals and humans are very different, and most of the testing procedures do not result in effective results because of this difference. Therefore, it is not right to continue allowing a process that has no scientific value to humans. In contrast, it is just a barbaric process that subjects animals to unnecessary torture in the name of research. Globally, out of 115 million animal tests conducted, the FDA and other regulations agencies only approved 59 drugs that resulted from these procedures (Knight, 2019). The numbers show that animal testing is not a very effective process, and therefore there must be immediate banning of the process. The fact that most of these tests mostly result in the death of these tests procedures makes it even more important to make the whole process illegal.
The use of animals is also hazardous because, in some cases, the process may lead to health issues. That is, the reaction of animals has, in several instances, led the researcher to believe that certain drugs are safe for human trials, and when they were undertaken led to human casualties. For example, when the Vioxx drug was approved based on the results of animal testing, the patients who were injected with the drug to treat arthritis suffered heart attacks, which were fatal. This shows that the use of animals to test drugs is not safe and may expose human beings to health problems, which may also lead to their death. These facts make the banning of the process very important to the field of science.
The use of animals as test subjects in the laboratories is very wasteful because it only leads to their deaths. For many of the cases that have so far been reported, only a very small section of the research ends up being published (Hansen & Kosberg, 2019). To explain, most of the research work that involves the use of animals as test subjects do not end being published because of various reasons related to their validity. Therefore, it is a waste of animal resources that could have otherwise been used for the right purposes (Bottini, 2009). Thinking of it, it is very barbaric of human beings to continue allowing this vice in the name of science, considering that it has no actual value on either humans or animals themselves. Animals deserve to live their life in a manner that does expose them to such acts that only waste their life instead of serving the purpose that they should serve.
The biggest medical breakthroughs of human disease have not involved in animal testing. This begs the question of why we continue to allow the practice to continue, yet according to history, there is evidence that shows that the process has resulted in a significant breakthrough. Looking at this fact, it is not right for the process to continue because the scientific impact has not contributed to any meaningful result. Surprisingly, non-animal methods are the ones that have contributed to significant breakthrough, therefore, showing that even if the process were banned, the discoveries of great importance would continue (Freires et al., 2016). In the 21st century, it is vital to ensure that animal testing ceases and the use of alternative methods applied because they are more effective.
Animals, just like humans, have the moral right to respectful treatment. The use of live animals for scientific research does, in any show respect to these animals. Many philosophers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant argued that the use of animals for scientific tests goes against the moral duty of humans towards animals. We have the responsibility to protect animals as the custodians of creation, which include protecting them from the pain and inhumane treatment that is common during testing processes. Banning the use of animal testing fulfill this obligation and ensure that we act as responsible protectors of animals as part of our noble duty to them.
Reports of animal mistreatment during testing are saddening and cannot be justified. For example, some animals have suffered permanent disability as a result of human errors during testing processes. In severe cases, even death due to exposure to very toxic substances (Freires et al., 2016). Most scientists break the set rules because there are no systems to monitor the testing process in their laboratories. Every year, millions of animals die as a result of very inhuman treatment during these processes. The ethical alternatives should apply in the testing and animals left to fulfill their fundamental roles in the world.
The alternatives ways of conducting research, such as the use of synthetic cellular tissue, have the same results as those from animal testing. In fact, in many of the studies, the research results are more accurate in the use of these alternatives than when using human subjects. It is, therefore, only fair to animals that the use of these alternatives applies in research instead of using innocent animals. Also, the advanced computer system in the modern world can be able to simulate tests of the harm or effectiveness of a drug with more accuracy than those of live animals. Therefore, I firmly believe that animal testing is not necessary in the modern world.
To conclude, banning animal testing will help to protect them from high-risk tests procedures that threaten their survival and also ensure they are not subject to mistreatment. Arguably, they are at the center of the continuity of man and, through the decisive action, prevent any outcome that may result in scientific abnormalities such as mutations that are irreversible.
References
Bottini, A. (2009). Food for thought... on the economics of animal testing. ALTEX , 3-16. https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2009.1.3
De Cássia Maria Garcia, R., Jukes, N., Bones, V., Gebara, R., De Almeida Souza, M. F., Ruiz, V. R., Alonso, L., Tréz, T., Oliveira, S. T., Rocha, A. A., Alves, G., Paixão, R. L., Menezes, R. D., Dias, C., Andersen, M. L., Gasparetto, D., Capilé, K., Matera, J. M., & Bachinski, R. (2018). Brazil starts to ban animal use in higher education: A positive and progressive development. Alternatives to Laboratory Animals , 46 (4), 235-239. https://doi.org/10.1177/026119291804600402
Freires, I. A., Sardi, J. D., De Castro, R. D., & Rosalen, P. L. (2016). Alternative animal and non-animal models for drug discovery and development: Bonus or burden? Pharmaceutical Research , 34 (4), 681-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2069-z
Freires, I. A., Sardi, J. D., De Castro, R. D., & Rosalen, P. L. (2016). Alternative animal and non-animal models for drug discovery and development: Bonus or burden? Pharmaceutical Research , 34 (4), 681-686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2069-z
Hansen, L. A., & Kosberg, K. A. (2019). Ethics, efficacy, and decision-making in animal research. Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change . https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_012
Knight, A. (2019). Critically evaluating animal research. Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change . https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004391192_015
Park, Y. S., & Valentino, B. (2019). Animals are people too: Explaining variation in respect for animal rights. Human Rights Quarterly , 41 (1), 39-65. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2019.0002
