Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Delaney 1

Miranda Delaney
English 112
25 March 2016
Pro Con
Animal Testing has been used in many scientific investigating issues and never was an
issue until the 19th century (procon.org). The big trend of saving animals and protecting then
started in 1875 and has made animal testing a big issue in the animal rights world. Some believe
animals have saved many lives and are a great way to figure out scientific breakthroughs. On the
other hand many people believe animal testing is cruel and animals should be treated with the
respect that humans are treated with. French physiologist Claude Bernard wrote the Introduction
to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865) where he argued that experimenting on animals
was ethical because of the benefits to medicine and the extension of human life (procon.org).
However at the time, Queen Victoria was a huge proponent to saving animal lives because she
felt that it was inhumane which she then proceeded to make the first laws against animal testing
in England (procon.org). Animal testing can be looked upon as a positive or negative thing, but
the question is whether animal testing is too inhumane or is it beneficial to saving lives of
Animal testing has saved many lives and has come up with many cures for humans who
are suffering. Diseases such as polio which is life threatening and paralyzing have been solved
by experimentation on dogs has reduced the global occurrence of the disease from 350,000 cases
in 1988 to 223 cases in 2012 (procon.org) This vast change in number of people surviving is

Delaney 2
beneficial to the argument of pro animal testing. In order to get the most accurate results animals
are the closest things to the human body system. Technology can be used but it does not take as
accurate depictions of how it would translate to the human body system. Without animals we
would have never gotten the vaccine of hepatitis B which was experimented on chimpanzees
(procon.org). However many people believe that even some experiments that animals do not
react well to, could have been good for humans. For example the everyday drug of aspirin was
almost not used because many animals do not react well to it (procon.org). Although, some
experiments have benefited animals in a huge way that even some animals that were going
extinct were saved.
Many people today are much more bias of animal testing including myself and feel that
animals testing are a cruel and unnatural thing to do to a living organism. In the experiments that
are performed, many of the animals are not put under healthy or nice conditions. The US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported in 2010 that 97,123 animals suffered pain during
experiments while being given no anesthesia for relief, including 1,395 primates, 5,996 rabbits,
33,652 guinea pigs, and 48,015 hamsters (procon.org). This number is astonishing and could
wipe out a whole species of animals. Many argue that medical experiments that could save lives
could be done without the expense of an animals live because there are usually some flaws in the
subject that does not carry over well to humans. Therefore, why waist precious animal lives
when there could be other methods of experimentation to be used other than animals.
I believe both sides have a passion though for saving lives of humans and animals just in
different ways. The pro side wants to find new research to save human lives and the con side
wants to save animal lives as well as find out new ways to save humans. Both sides just need to
find a middle ground. A way to resolve this issue could be if a person were to perform animal

Delaney 3
experimentation there should be harsh laws on how you can treat an animal and it must be
performed in a safe way. Another way could be that maybe in the future, technology will be so
good that scientists will not have to use living organisms but they could use internet-based
organism to perform on.
The pros and cons of animal testing are present in todays times. On the one hand, people
feel animal testing is better because it could save lives and not use humans to do that. On the
other hand, hopeless animals are being used harshly and species could go extinct because of this.
Both sides want to save lives but the question is which way is more beneficial in the long run?