You don't want people getting adverse reactions to these drugs and adding more woes to their misery. That means the value of their life is dependent upon market forces and demand. These human subjects have to be paid many time more than animals for study. It would involve performing unnecessary tests. The loss of business has prompted quite a few companies to eliminate their use of animal testing. Given these circumstances, animals used in experimentation do serve as appropriate research subjects. Expensive To Do Costs begin to add up when you truly think about animal testing.
Some products and medicines that have the potential to harm animals are actually useful to humans, such as the aspirin. People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle, pigs and sheep annually, yet we only use around 26 million animals for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish. List of Cons of Animal Testing on Cosmetics 1. Committees must approve animal research and be held responsible for the humane treatment of each animal. Since existing laws often afford many rights to animals already in terms of proper treatment, spending this extra cost to provide equivalence may not be the right choice to make. One argument that is considered seriously is that animals cannot provide consent to the testing to which they are being subjected. To protect the over all health of humans and to accurately determine the effects that a product or substance will have.
As it is immoral to experiment on humans, chimpanzees and other monkeys remain the only option. There are no other testing alternatives. The biggest problems are the ethical ones, which need to be individually addressed rather than animal testing as a whole. This is further supported by the Archives of Toxicology study in 2013, stating that the lack of direct comparison of human data versus that of a rat puts in question the usefulness of research data. Total animals killed in research annually: 19. Animal testing in medicine has been carried out since a really long time.
Funding Research with Animal Experimentation 1. However, even similar organisms taken out of their natural habitat may not react in a reliable, consistent manner to a drug intended for human use. If this is done directly on humans without before testing on animals, it could be disastrous. This is because the cost of housing, feeding caring for the animals is quite high. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. Can you imagine if vaccines were not tested on animals? Animals are not only tested for making lives of humans better, but for the betterment of animals themselves as well. Virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures done through computer models also have the capacity to predict toxicity levels of substances, so no need to poison animals to collect data and draw conclusions.
Animal testing is actually not cheap, considering that it is costly to provide care, food and shelter for the animals being subject to tests. Those against the practice argue that animals, pretty much like us humans, have the right to live, and we need to accept that instead of killing them with the intention of improving our quality of life. In comparison, producing an equivalent number of soybeans or corn would cost 216 gallons and 108 gallons respectively. According to the laws of most nations, animals are covered under property rights. List of Cons of Animal Experimentation 1. In cosmetics testing, animals would endure inhumane treatment, where they are being restrained. Animal testing is one of the most fascinating , and is a great subject for anyone concerned with social issues to learn about, whether it involves adding meaningful insight to an intelligent discussion or for a class at school, something you can learn more about with Udemy.
The Anderson Cancer Center also associated the hepatitis B vaccine with tests that were conducted on chimpanzees. These animals are bred for the sole purpose of being tested on and live a life of pain and captivity. Take note that some animals are killed immediately after each trial. In some cases, they can continue to study across several generations. Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.
Many scientists stated that medical accomplishments that used animal testing may still have been made without such procedure. A sleeping pill tested on animals in the 50s caused thousands of babies to be born with birth defects, while a heart pill tested on mice was released to the public only to cause nearly 30,000 heart attacks. It is also a common practice for animals' eyes to be held open with clips for hours, even days, in the course of testing cosmetics products. If just half of those funds were sent to food programs, that would create 40 billion extra meals to feed the hungry. Considering that human beings can live up to 80 years or more, scientists who are conducting tests would be dead before they can gather results.
This means that the experiments these animals are subjected to may fall under a classification some may call cruel. Added officers and officials would be needed for enforcement. Cons of Animal Research Using animals in research is a costly methodology. This was certainly true by looking at the sleeping pill thalidomide in the 1950s, which caused thousands of babies to be born with severe deformities. But, you can't compare that with the months of torture the animals go through while the experiments are on. Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.
Drugs can be potentially and immediately harmful to humans, especially during the testing phase of a product, so animal testing allows for researchers to determine the quality and safety of a product before humans take it. But, as English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham puts it, it is not a question of whether they can talk or reason, but whether or not they suffer. These people stress on the fact that there is no dearth of arguments against the practice - both on ethical and scientific grounds. In this case, animals would just suffer and even die in vain from dangerous tests that do not even offer benefits to humans. Some could argue that it is immoral.
The costs of feeding, housing, caring for, and treating the animals must be considered, as well as the price of the animals in the first place. Animal treatments that were developed using animal testing also include remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia, as well as pacemakers for heart disease. Many of the animal testing procedures that are initiated never result in a product and the figures continue to rise. When a cure to a disease is discovered while working with animals, at least that test subject served a purpose that helped humanity, even if the results were not positive in the short term for the animal population. However, Yorick died several hours after landing, possibly due to heat stress.