For difference response on humans, alternative methods for

For over 2000 years, mankind
has been testing on animals for the benefit of its own good. Whether it be for
food, clothing, shelter, or even cosmetics, animals have been a huge part of
our lives. Even though animals have played a tremendous role for keeping humanity
alive, the way people treat these animals creates an essence of inhumanity
rather than giving us the title of compassion and philanthropy that humanity
should give. Over the years of applying animals into our daily life, it has
come to point where the practices being done on animals to give humans better
lives has caused huge controversy. From branding livestock to castrating young
animals without any anesthesia, animals go through invasive, cruel procedures
just to make the world go round.  Many
groups and projects and organizations have been formed to stand up for the
animal kingdom. Organizations such as Austin Pets Alive, PETA, and Voices for
Pets are only a couple of the hundreds of nonprofit organizations that “promote
and facilitate the health and well-being of all animals” (Incredible). These
groups provide shelter and treatment to the thousands of abused animals they
find. With the help of our modern society, animal experimentation should be
banned because the testing done on animals could have a difference response on
humans, alternative methods for testing on animals is being practiced now, and
if we aren’t testing cosmetic products on humans to see if they’re safe, why
test them on animals? With having these reasons come into consideration, animal
testing should not be permitted for experimental research and the future of
mankind could be a place of peace between the different species roaming earth.

            Mahatma Gandhi once said, “the greatness of a nation and
its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Gandhi’s
morals and ethics were always pure and he always did things for the greater
good using no violence. Torturing animals gives the essence of savagery and
wickedness. God created man to live a worthwhile life, not to torment the
species we were created alongside with. If a man as successful and legendary as
Gandhi hated mistreating animals, why should mankind continue to do so if there
are so many negatives to it. For example, one primary negative is that the
testing done on animals could have a different response on humans. While some
people believe that experimenting on animals gives the most accurate results,
consequently, the testing done on animals could have a different response on
humans because of the difference in cellular composition in both bodies (Animal).
There are many scientifically proven experiments out there where animals have
been known as poor models for humans. For example, in the 1950’s a drug called
thalidomide was brought into the market as a mild sleeping pill safe for
pregnant women. The pill was tested on animals and it implied no harmful
effects. Once it was used on pregnant women, thousands of babies worldwide were
born with malformed limbs (Science). Some might say this is an outdated example
and with our modern society, things are much different and safer now. Well,
think again. Let’s look at this through a different perspective. According to
the website for the Pet Poison Hotline, common household medications such as
Advil, Aleve, and Motrin (just to name a few) are completely toxic when
ingested by pets. Even though these pills are helpful to humans, “even one or
two pills can cause serious harm to a pet” (Human). These two examples comply
with each other because it shows us that things that are consumed by humans
could have harmful effects on animals and vice versa.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

            Cancer: the second leading cause of death in the U.S
after heart disease. It’s been around since before Christ yet there is still no
cure. Due to ethical concerns with not wanting to experiment on humans for such
a deadly disease, animal models have been necessary for cancer research. This
can be understandable when saving lives comes into consideration. But did you
know that “the average rate of successful translation from animal models to
clinical cancer trials is less than 8%” (Mak)? Even though animals will bet the
only thing scientists will ever get to test on, the chance for a clinical trial
to turn out beneficial is very minuscule. You might be wondering what happens
when a trial is successful regarding the less than 8%. Well, scientists move on
to phase two where “only half become approved for clinical use” (Mak). With
saying this, a successful clinical trial is more than one in a million. That’s
why it’s so hard to find a cure for such a deadly disease that’s been around
for millenniums.

            With all the differences being said between animals and
humans, some still might say that animals are too closely resembled to the
human body. Though this is scientifically true, taking chimpanzees for example “share
99% of their DNA with humans”. However, it’s not biologically true, because
“two identical stretches of DNA can work differently and be ‘turned on’ in
different amounts, in different places or at different times” (Animal, DNA).
This comes into major consideration when injecting animals with a dose that can
be harmless to them but once injected into humans, it’s harmful. Even that 1%
comes into deliberation when figuring out if a certain dose will end up working
on humans or not.

Another
reason to prohibit testing on animals is because alternatives to animal testing
are now scientifically proven to work instead of having to experiment on them.
It is already established that animal models fail to capture human diseases and
important physiological responses. Thanks to the modern world that we live in, scientists
can now replace animals with alternatives such as “tissue cultures,
microorganisms, or computer models” (Read). Testing on animals for biomedical
research has been a traditional way aiming all the way back to Aristotle. With
having a substitute come into place, researchers can now forget about the outdated,
expensive, and unnecessary procedures done on animals and focus on modern ways
now. Some alternatives to animal testing include: in vitro (in glass), virtual
drug trials, stem cells and genetic testing methods. Researchers are even using
microdosing, which is a procedure where “humans are given very low quantities
of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without
effecting the whole-body system” (Animals). It looks as if humans have stepped
back from self-love and have concluded that microdosing can be a technique to
see if a drug is safe or not without harming themselves. Also, there is a
higher predicament at play. Scientists have been studying the human body for
ages so the instance in which they lack knowledge about the effects of
different variables conducted in the body, would be rare. Using these different
techniques produces more reliable results because in some cases, real human
tissue is being used in compared to animal tissue. For example, in vitro is an
experiment taken place in a test tube “using either primary cells derived from
human blood or skin or different cell lines” (Szameit). Testing on human tissue
gives us the potential to accurately provide “physiologically relevant and
robust models for basic research” that escapes the need to use animals (Holmes).
These alternatives give accuracy and reliability whereas testing on animals is
just a sense of trial and error. 

Given
the new methods for experimenting on new scientific findings, some might say
animals are still non-replaceable because testing on them gives us a whole-body
system to work with instead of just experimenting on tissues. The human body is
a complex organization made up of different organs that work together to keep
you alive. Injecting a drug into the system can tell us how each organ reacts
rather than how a simple tissue reacts. Even though this may be true to an
extent, animals are still very different in their “anatomic, metabolic, and
cellular” composition from human bodies (Animal). The immune system or
circulatory system or nervous system can be different from animals to humans
therefor making them a poor model for humans.

Millions
of animals are used every year in painful, horrific ways just to make us look
beautiful (Guidry). In our society, people believe it’s morally acceptable to
test cosmetic products on animals if it benefits society. No one cares if that
Loreal foundation was tested on a bunny before being put on the market. Or if that
Maybelline mascara was experimented on a poor, little mouse just to see if it’s
safe to be used on your eyelashes. This right here draws the line for society.
It officially makes us as a community a predator to poor little preys that
can’t defend themselves. Back in 2002, Europe was close to finally banning the testing
of animals in cosmetic products but right before the law got passed, the EU
decided to reject it “fearing that it would disadvantage European exporters and
violate world trade rules” (Shalev). They feared they would lose money because
of the “8,000 current cosmetic ingredients” that were already bought (Shalev).
This gives us a nature of mercilessness and bloodthirstiness for worrying about
money rather than having to worry about the torture animals go through. Makeup was
invented by humans to be used only on humans. Makeup gives us confidence and it
only benefits us so why test them on animals to see if they’re safe enough to
use? Humans are the only species that worry about how they depict themselves to
the world. They were never meant for animals in the first place so what’s the
point of torturing them for no reason just for a product that covers your
blemishes. It’s not like we need cosmetics, it’s only a want and having to put
animals in misery for something you don’t need to survive it pointless.

For
all those “beauty gurus” out there that can’t live without makeup, don’t worry
because there are plenty of cosmetic brands that are cruelty-free. Brands such
as: BareMinerals, ELF, Kat Von D, Tarte, Wet n Wild are just a few of the
hundreds of brands that are 100% cruelty free (LogicalHarmony). These cruelty
brands are more popular in the market than brands that test on animals. Society
might bring in the excuse of testing on animals because we as a community don’t
want to test on ourselves. Bringing in animals does not fix anything. It makes
it worse because it shows that we do not have any empathy towards the innocent
animals that are losing their lives to be experimented on. The human race
should show more empathy towards animals because they deserve the same rights
as us. All living things deserve to be treated equally disregarding what group
you’re from.

In conclusion,
I believe that animal testing is an unethical excuse for keeping humanity alive
when there are scientifically proven alternatives and factual reasons out
there. As consumers, we can make a difference by letting our voices be heard.
Publicizing our opinions to the mass media can help stop the issue of
experimenting on animals. The future is envisioned as a place with no cruel
interaction between the different species that roam this earth. 

x

Hi!
I'm Johnny!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out