Is Animal Testing Really Necessary?
Animal testing is a phrase that most people have heard but are perhaps still unsure of exactly what is involved. Whether it is referred to as animal testing, animal experimentation or animal research, it means the experimentation carried out on animals. Experimental animal testing has been one of the highest debated issues for many years. Animal testing is used for numerous products and applications. Everything from toiletries to medications has likely been tested on animals at some point prior to their distribution (Murnaghan). Animal testing can be conducted anywhere from a university to a military defense establishment, wherever there is a need for testing a product. Products to be tested will range from cosmetics to pesticides and anything in-between. Animal testing has been around for over 500 years, since the early 17th century, though testing for cosmetic purposes did not start until the 1930s. Animal testing has been highly debated for many years for whether it is moral, ethical, humane, right, wrong, just, fair, etcetera. Many people stand against animal testing because they feel that it is unfair treatment to animals since animals do not have a say in the matter. On the other side of the argument, people fight for animal testing because it allows for prescription drugs and medicines to be tested. Both sides have their valid points, animal testing can be seen as cruel, especially when there are alternatives that can be used, but also, even with alternatives, testing on animals is still sometimes necessary in order to get the needed results.
In a debate between Laurie Pycroft, one of the founders of Pro-Test, and Helen Marston, head of Humane Research Australia, the two go back and forth about animal testing and its potential alternatives. Pycroft starts out the debate by explaining the complexity of the human body and how no investigative tool can “fully replicate the intricacy of a living organism” (Pycroft). Marston returns fire by talking about why
In a debate between Laurie Pycroft, one of the founders of Pro-Test, and Helen Marston, head of Humane Research Australia, the two go back and forth about animal testing and its potential alternatives. Pycroft starts out the debate by explaining the complexity of the human body and how no investigative tool can “fully replicate the intricacy of a living organism” (Pycroft). Marston returns fire by talking about why
Cited: "Stop the Use of Goats and Live Animals in Military Testing." Petition Online. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. Abbott, Alison. "Animal Testing: More than a Cosmetic Change." Nature 438.7065 (2005): 144-46. 10 Nov. 2005. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. Biever, Celeste. "Can Computer Models Replace Animal Testing?" New Scientist 2551 (2006). New Scientist. 16 May 2006. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. Hartung, Thomas. "Food for Thought ... on Animal Tests." ALTEX (2008). EC Joint Research Centre. Web. 22 Nov. 2011. Murnaghan, Ian. "The Basics by About Animal Testing (UK)." About Animal Testing. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. Musch, Timothy I., Robert G. Carroll, Armin Just, Pascale H. Lane, and William T. Talman. "A Broader View of Animal Research." BMJ 334.7588 (2007): 274. 10 Feb. 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2011. Powder, Jackie. "Humane Science Offers Alternatives to Animal Testing." Johns Hopkins Public Health (2006). Fall 2006. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. Pycroft, Laurie, and Helen Marston. "Is Animal Testing Necessary to Advance Medical Research." New Internationalist 443 (2011). New Internationalist. Web. 01 Dec. 2011.