Have you ever thought about whether animal testing hurts animals or not? Or do you know what the rate of animal deaths because of testing is? Undoubtedly, animal testing has been used by many scientists for years. Nowadays, over 100 million animals die in U.S. laboratories because of chemical and drug testing every year. (Collins, 2014). However, the most important question is whether inflicting pain on animals or even killing them worth it? Or is it really necessary to use animals for testing? According to Gericke (2013), many animals have to die for each product. Generally, the products tested do not even improve medical science. Moreover, she claims that animal experiments do not contribute the enhancement of new therapies. In spite of the fact that many scientists claim that animal testing is necessary in order to treat some diseases, the truth is that animal testing is against animal rights, it leads to animals suffering in addition to all this there are many alternative testing methods used for treatments instead of animal testing.
Even though many scientists argue that animal testing should be used because it helps to find solutions for diseases, there are also some alternative testing methods which can be used rather than animal testing. These testing methods are mostly about using human instead of using animals. Using human is more beneficial since animals are poor model for testing due to genetic differences. Also, it takes less time because human can answer questions that are necessary for experiment, so scientists do not have to wait until some symptoms appear. Using some special computer programs, and combining them with human cells and tissues, can deliver the exact same results with animals that are used in experiments. (Gericke, 2014, para.11). However, some people think using animals is more beneficial because animals have genetically similarities between human. Animal testing can help especially for some diseases like obesity. In order to generate more efficent therapies, animals should be used, mainly mice, to understand the genetic and the underlying monecular basis of obesity. (Higgins,2011, para.17). Nevertheless, this cannot be true since tests are not reliable fully because humans and animals are different from each other not only mentally, but also genetically. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make people more reliable models for testing.
Some scientists think that animals do not have rights because they are not human, but there is no need to be human to have certain rights. Therefore, animals can have rights about not being used by scientists because animal testing is against animal rights. It can be said that all creatures are equally valuable, and share the same rights. Their value cannot be measured by looking at how necessary they are to the world, and if they are a freight to others, their value does not decrease. On the other hand, some people think animals cannot have rights because having rights is special for humans. Cohen says animals cannot have rights. The concept of rights is essential for human because it is caused in human moral world and having rights has force in the human moral world. (2010). However, animals do have rights because of the fact that having rights does not require being a human. Animal rights are not just a philosophical idea. It's a part of sucial justice movement.(Regan, 2004, para.7). For that reason, there is no need to be humans to have rights about not used by scientists.
According to some scientists, animals have less suffer than humans, but it does not mean that they do not have suffer just because of the fact that they cannot complain about it. Testing leads to animals suffering due to exposing some drugs, injections or their side effects. In addition, using some drugs or doing some experiments do not only inflict pain but also make the animal life shorter. In research and testing, animals are exposed to experiments that can encompass everything from testing new drugs to infecting with diseases, poisoning for testing, and other painful policies. It can include protocols that cause serious suffering. Even so, some scientists support that animals suffer less than human because they are different from people, so they do not suffer same. However, this cannot be completely true since animals and humans are very similar genetically. It is obvious that this cannot be said because animals have suffer like humans. Suffering is for all creatures, so it does not matter if it is human or not.
To sum up, although animal testing is against animal rights, and it makes animals suffer, many scientists continue to use animal testing in spite of numerous alternative testing methods. The important point is that there is no need for animals to be used for testing products or drugs; it is arguably unfair while there are many options instead of animal testing in medicine science. However, if all other methods fail, and there’s no alternative method then, animals can be subjected of the research. Even in exceptional situations like disasters or deadly diseases, animal testing should be the last resort. It is cruelty to use animal testing in optional situations like cosmetics or production. Therefore, torturing animals is not worth it for producing some consumer products. People don't need more make up and hygene products or drugs for helping improving sexual intercourse so badly that it should take animals' lives.(Singer, 2009, para.13). Being human does not mean harming weaker creatures which cannot even stand up to people not thinking about the right to life. For that reason, stand up for animals and their right to live.