Animal testing was existing since old ages .Every year, more than 30 million of animals are used for experiments in USA. The vast majority of these experiments achieve success. It is conducted for different purposes. To test a new product, educational purposes or researches. Unlike the past, it is conducted by universities, medical schools and pharmaceutical companies. In my point of view, animal testing is necessary. However, some people oppose using animal in test. This topic is debatable. This essay will examine arguments in favour and against animal testing.
The first argument is that there is no alternatives. Technology has come up with many alternatives that we can make testing. Some people would say that examiner can use cell culture. But, it costs a lot of money and doesn’t show results close to human behaviour. Meanwhile, animals show almost the similar behaviour to human beings. Up to date, there is no alternative as effective as animals. According to (Spalding Guardian, July 16) it is incorrect that there are other alternatives instead of using animals in medical research.
The second argument is that animal testing saves and improves lives of millions of people. It plays pivotal role in our life. For example, In the UK, one of the pharmaceutical company had a new product. When they verified from the safety of medicine, they found that it causes harm for users. Professor Robert Winston said “because of animal testing we live longer and healthier lives than ever before”.
The third argument is that it is used for educational purposes. It can be used in veterinary science as an educational mean which is in favour of animal, explain the impacts of some kinds of drugs on the animal organisms. This enables the students to balance between theoretical and practical knowledge. In the USA, the National Science Teacher Association (NSAT), starting in 2008, recognized that methods of teaching that use animal testing can be effective in learning.
On the other hand, some people believe that animal testing is cruel and causes harm to animal. They think that drugs will affect negatively on the animal. Often, they think that test process is conducted randomly. Opponents are looking to the test as it occurs irregularly and examiner is someone who is not specialist. However, the animal (scientific procedure) Act was established in 1986. The act states that animal testing must: take place in designated place, conduct by experts, get license. The license is only granted if the potential results are effective and very important. According to this act, the animal is reserved from any random mistakes and harm.
To conclude, I concede that experiments upon animals may induce suffering to the test animals. However, it is generally arguable that there are no practical alternatives to this methodology at the current stage of scientific development. On balance, I am convinced that what we should do is to allow animals testing to be continued but at the same time use techniques such as analgesic, anaesthetic and tranquilizing drugs to minimize the pain of the test animal.