why animal testing should be banned essay

Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Students are often asked to write an essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Animal testing is unkind.

Animal testing often causes pain and suffering to animals. They are kept in small cages and are used for experiments that can hurt them. This is not fair because animals feel pain just like we do. We should not make them suffer for our benefits.

Not Always Useful

Many times, tests on animals do not give results that are helpful for humans. This is because animals and humans are different. So, the pain we cause to animals may not even help us in the end.

Better Options Exist

Nowadays, we have other ways to test products that do not involve hurting animals. Scientists can use computer models or grow human cells in labs. These methods can give us good information without causing harm to any living creature.

250 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

Animal testing: why it should be banned.

Animal testing refers to scientific experiments using non-human animals as subjects. For many years, animals have been used in experiments to study diseases, test medicines, and explore other scientific questions. However, there are many reasons why this practice should be banned.

Pain and Suffering

Unreliable results.

Animal testing results are often unreliable when applied to humans. Animals may respond differently to drugs and treatments than humans do, leading to inaccurate or misleading findings. Additionally, the stress and fear experienced by animals during testing can affect the results, making them even less reliable.

Alternatives to Animal Testing

Today, there are many alternative methods available that can replace animal testing. These methods include computer simulations, cell cultures, and human tissue models. These alternatives are not only more humane, but they are often more accurate and reliable than animal testing.

Ethical Concerns

Animal testing raises serious ethical concerns. Many people believe that it is wrong to harm or kill animals for the sake of scientific research. Animals are sentient beings who deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.

In light of the pain and suffering caused to animals, the unreliability of results, the availability of alternatives, and the ethical concerns, it is clear that animal testing should be banned. It is time to move towards a more humane and ethical approach to scientific research.

500 Words Essay on Why Animal Testing Should Be Banned

What is animal testing.

Animal testing is the use of animals in experiments and other scientific studies. Animals are used to test products such as medicines, cosmetics, and chemicals, as well as to study diseases and develop new treatments.

Why is Animal Testing Bad?

Animals are not like humans.

The results of animal tests are not always accurate because animals are not like humans. They have different bodies, different metabolisms, and different immune systems. This means that drugs and chemicals that are safe for animals may not be safe for humans.

There Are Alternatives to Animal Testing

There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. These alternatives include computer models, cell cultures, and human tissue samples. These alternatives are often more cost-effective than animal testing and do not cause pain and suffering to animals.

Animal Testing is Cruel and Unnecessary

Animal testing is a cruel and unnecessary practice. It causes pain and suffering to animals and is often inaccurate. There are many alternatives to animal testing that are more accurate and humane. We should ban animal testing and replace it with these alternatives.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?

The E.P.A. recently said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals. Do you support the decision?

By Natalie Proulx

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

On Sept. 10, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals, a decision that was hailed by animal rights groups but criticized by environmentalists and researchers who said the practice was necessary to rigorously safeguard human health.

What are your thoughts on animal testing? Do you think it is ever justified? Why or why not?

In “ E.P.A. Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing ,” Mihir Zaveri, Mariel Padilla and Jaclyn Peiser write about the decision:

The E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency plans to reduce the amount of studies that involve mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025, and to eliminate the studies entirely by 2035, though some may still be approved on a case-by-case basis. The agency said it would also invest $4.25 million in projects at four universities and a medical center that are developing alternate ways of testing chemicals that do not involve animals. “We can protect human health and the environment by using cutting-edge, ethically sound science in our decision-making that efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing,” Mr. Wheeler said in a memo announcing the changes. The E.P.A. has for decades required testing on a variety of animals — including rats, dogs, birds and fish — to gauge their toxicity before the chemicals can be bought, sold or used in the environment.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

• About Animal Testing /
• current page Arguments against animal testing

Arguments against animal testing

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences.

It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans.  Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.

Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments.

The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.

Unreliable animal testing

• 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work.
• Urology drugs have the lowest success rate (only 4% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by heart drugs (5% success rate), cancer drugs (5% success rate) and neurology drugs (6% success rate).
• Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans.
• A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.
• Another study showed that over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been “successful” in animal tests, but of the approximately 10% that progressed to human trials, none worked sufficiently well in humans.
• One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently, we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs ’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 “breakthroughs” had been realised in humans, and that was subject to several caveats.

Dangerous animal testing

• Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 140,000 heart attacks and strokes and 60,000 deaths worldwide.
• Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK, in 2006 suffered a severe immune reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.
• A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans.
• A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first.

Animals are different

• Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia.
• An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA.
• The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) is resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.
• Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in humans but toxic to dogs.
• Aspirin is toxic to many animals and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING

Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Alternatives to animal testing

subtitle: Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Science Page

Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Our History

subtitle: Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

What is animal testing?

subtitle: Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Types of animal testing

subtitle: Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Facts and figures on animal testing

subtitle: Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Science Publications

Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

• History of Animal Testing

Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other  biomedical , commercial, and health care uses. Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC.

Descriptions of the dissection of live animals have been found in ancient Greek writings from as early as circa 500 BC. Physician-scientists such as  Aristotle ,  Herophilus , and  Erasistratus  performed the experiments to discover the functions of living organisms.  Vivisection  (dissection of a living organism) was practiced on human criminals in ancient Rome and Alexandria, but prohibitions against mutilation of the human body in ancient Greece led to a reliance on animal subjects. Aristotle believed that animals lacked intelligence, and so the notions of justice and injustice did not apply to them.  Theophrastus , a successor to Aristotle, disagreed, objecting to the vivisection of animals on the grounds that, like humans, they can feel pain, and causing pain to animals was an affront to the gods. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 Animal testing contributes to life-saving cures and treatments for humans and animals alike. Nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals, according to the California Biomedical Research Association. To name just a few examples, animal research has contributed to major advances in treating conditions including breast cancer, brain injury, childhood leukemia, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and tuberculosis. Testing on animals was also instrumental in the development of pacemakers, cardiac valve substitutes, and anesthetics. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] Scientists racing to develop a vaccine for coronavirus during the 2020 global pandemic needed to test on genetically modified mice to ensure that the vaccine did not make the virus worse. Nikolai Petrovsky, professor in the College of Medicine and Public Health at Flinders University in Australia, said testing a coronavirus vaccine on animals is “absolutely essential” and skipping that step would be “fraught with difficulty and danger.” [ 119 ] [ 133 ] Researchers have to test extensively to prevent “vaccine enhancement,” a situation in which a vaccine actually makes the disease worse in some people. “The way you reduce that risk is first you show it does not occur in laboratory animals,” explains Peter Hotez, Dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College. [ 119 ] [ 141 ] Further, animals themselves benefit from the results of animal testing. Vaccines tested on animals have saved millions of animals that would otherwise have died from rabies, distemper, feline leukemia, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax, and canine parvo virus. Treatments for animals developed using animal testing also include pacemakers for heart disease and remedies for glaucoma and hip dysplasia. [ 9 ] [ 21 ] Animal testing has also been instrumental in saving endangered species from extinction, including the black-footed ferret, the California condor and the tamarins of Brazil. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses animal testing to develop safe drugs, vaccines, and medical devices. [ 9 ] [ 13 ] [ 23 ] Read More

Pro 2 Animals are appropriate research subjects because they are similar to human beings in many ways. Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. All mammals, including humans, are descended from common ancestors, and all have the same set of organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, etc.) that function in essentially the same way with the help of a bloodstream and central nervous system. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. [ 9 ] [ 17 ] [ 18 ] Animals often make better research subjects than humans because of their shorter life cycles. Laboratory mice, for example, live for only two to three years, so researchers can study the effects of treatments or genetic manipulation over a whole lifespan, or across several generations, which would be infeasible using human subjects. Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long-term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans. [ 9 ] [ 29 ] [ 30 ] Further, animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. It would be unethical to perform invasive experimental procedures on human beings before the methods have been tested on animals, and some experiments involve genetic manipulation that would be unacceptable to impose on human subjects before animal testing. The World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki states that human trials should be preceded by tests on animals. [ 19 ] [ 20 ] A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89% favored the use of animals in scientific research. The American Cancer Society, American Physiological Society, National Association for Biomedical Research, American Heart Association, and the Society of Toxicology all advocate the use of animals in scientific research. [ 36 ] [ 37 ] [ 38 ] [ 39 ] [ 40 ] [ 120 ] Read More

Pro 3 Animal research is highly regulated, with laws in place to protect animals from mistreatment. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research has been regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. As well as stipulating minimum housing standards for research animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water, and others), the AWA also requires regular inspections by veterinarians. [ 3 ] All proposals to use animals for research must be approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) set up by each research facility. Most major research institutions’ programs are voluntarily reviewed for humane practices by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC). [ 24 ] [ 25 ] Animal researchers treat animals humanely, both for the animals’ sake and to ensure reliable test results. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. Rachel Rubino, attending veterinarian and director of the animal facility at Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, says, “Most people who work with research animals love those animals…. We want to give them the best lives possible, treat them humanely.” At Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s animal research facility, dogs are given exercise breaks twice daily to socialize with their caretakers and other dogs, and a “toy rotation program” provides opportunities for play. [ 28 ] [ 32 ] Read More

Con 1 Animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, food and water deprivation, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means,” according to Humane Society International. The US Department of Agriculture reported in Jan. 2020 that research facilities used over 300,000 animals in activities involving pain in just one year. [ 47 ] [ 102 ] Plus, most experiments involving animals are flawed, wasting the lives of the animal subjects. A peer-reviewed study found serious flaws in the majority of publicly funded US and UK animal studies using rodents and primates: “only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used.” A 2017 study found further flaws in animal studies, including “incorrect data interpretation, unforeseen technical issues, incorrectly constituted (or absent) control groups, selective data reporting, inadequate or varying software systems, and blatant fraud.” [ 64 ] [ 128 ] Only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by US law. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not apply to rats, mice, fish, and birds, which account for 95% of the animals used in research. The types of animals covered by the AWA account for fewer than one million animals used in research facilities each year, which leaves around 25 million other animals without protection from mistreatment. The US Department of Agriculture, which inspects facilities for AWA compliance, compiles annual statistics on animal testing but they only include data on the small percentage of animals subject to the Act. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 26 ] [ 28 ] [ 135 ] Even the animals protected by the AWA are mistreated. Violations of the Animal Welfare Act at the federally funded New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana included maltreatment of primates who were suffering such severe psychological stress that they engaged in self-mutilation, infant primates awake and alert during painful experiments, and chimpanzees being intimidated and shot with a dart gun. [ 68 ] Read More

Con 2 Animal tests do not reliably predict results in human beings. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. Over 100 stroke drugs and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in humans after succeeding in animal trials. Nearly 150 clinical trials (human tests) of treatments to reduce inflammation in critically ill patients have been undertaken, and all of them failed, despite being successful in animal tests. [ 57 ] [ 58 ] [ 59 ] Drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe. The 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant mice, rats, guinea pigs, cats, and hamsters did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal tests on the arthritis drug Vioxx showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of mice, yet the drug went on to cause more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. [ 5 ] [ 55 ] [ 56 ] [ 109 ] [ 110 ] Plus, animal tests may mislead researchers into ignoring potential cures and treatments. Some chemicals that are ineffective on (or harmful to) animals prove valuable when used by humans. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species. Intravenous vitamin C has shown to be effective in treating sepsis in humans, but makes no difference to mice. Fk-506 (tacrolimus), used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was “almost shelved” because of animal test results, according to neurologist Aysha Akhtar. A report on Slate.com stated that a “source of human suffering may be the dozens of promising drugs that get shelved when they cause problems in animals that may not be relevant for humans.” [ 105 ] [ 106 ] [ 127 ] Read More

Con 3 Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Other research methods such as in vitro testing (tests done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish) offer opportunities to reduce or replace animal testing. Technological advancements in 3D printing allow the possibility for tissue bioprinting: a French company is working to bioprint a liver that can test the toxicity of a drug. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, can be made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and may produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. [ 15 ] [ 16 ] [ 50 ] [ 51 ] Michael Bachelor, Senior Scientist and Product Manager at biotech company MatTek, stated, “We can now create a model from human skin cells — keratinocytes — and produce normal skin or even a model that mimics a skin disease like psoriasis. Or we can use human pigment-producing cells — melanocytes — to create a pigmented skin model that is similar to human skin from different ethnicities. You can’t do that on a mouse or a rabbit.” The Environmental Protection Agency is so confident in alternatives that the agency intends to reduce chemical testing on mammals 30% by 2025 and end it altogether by 2035. [ 61 ] [ 134 ] [ 140 ] Scientists are also able to test vaccines on humans volunteers. Unlike animals used for research, humans are able to give consent to be used in testing and are a viable option when the need arises. The COVID-19 (coronavirus) global pandemic demonstrated that researchers can skip animal testing and go straight to observing how vaccines work in humans. One company working on a COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna Therapeutics, worked on developing a vaccine using new technology: instead of being based on a weakened form of the virus, it was developed using a synthetic copy of the COVID-19 genetic code. [ 142 ] [ 143 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Animal Testing – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• Did You Know?
• Glossary: Animals Used in Animal Testing
• Number of Animals Used for Testing
• Cite this Page
• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

Cite This Page

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for interesting animal testing topics to research and write about? This field is truly controversial and worth studying!

• 🌶️ Titles: Catchy & Creative
• 🐶 Essay: How to Write
• 🏆 Best Essay Examples
• 📌 Good Topics to Research
• 🎯 Most Interesting Topics to Write about

❓ Animal Testing Research Questions

In your animal testing essay, you might want to explore the historical or legal perspective, focus on the issue of animal rights, or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of animal testing in medicine, pharmacology, or cosmetic industry. We’ve gathered the most creative and catchy animal testing titles and added top animal testing essay examples. There are also useful tips on making and outline, formulating a thesis, and creating a hook sentence for your animal testing essay.

🌶️ Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

• What would life be like without animal testing?
• Animal testing: the cruelest experiments.
• AWA: why does not it protect all animals?
• What if animals experimented on humans?
• In the skin of a guinea pig: a narrative essay.
• Opposing animal testing: success stories.
• Animal-tested products: should they be destroyed?
• What have we gained from experiments on animals?
• Animal testing and cancer research: past and present.

🐶 Animal Testing Essay: How to Write

Animal testing has been an acute problem for a long time. Scientists and pharmaceutical firms use this approach to test cosmetics, foods, and other products people use daily.

Essays on animal testing are important because they highlight the significance of the problem. Writing outstanding animal testing essays requires extensive research and dedication.

We have prepared some do’s and don’ts for your excellent essay. But first, you should select a topic for your paper. Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from:

• The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing
• Animal testing should (not) be banned
• How animal testing affects endangered species
• The history and consequences of animal testing
• The controversy associated with animal testing
• Animal Bill of Rights: Pros and cons
• Is animal testing necessary?

Remember that these animal testing essay titles are just the ideas for your paper. You are free to select other relevant titles and topics for discussion, too. Once you have selected the problem for your essay, you can start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing about animal testing:

• Do extensive preliminary research on the issue you have selected. You should be aware of all the problems associated with your questions, its causes, and consequences. Ask your professor about the sources you can use. Avoid relying on Wikipedia and personal blogs as your primary sources of information.
• Develop a well-organized outline and think of how you will structure your paper. Think of the main animal testing essay points and decide how you can present them in the paper. Remember to include introductory and concluding sections along with several body paragraphs.
• Start your paper with a hooking sentence. An animal testing essay hook should grab the reader’s attention. You can present an interesting question or statistics in this sentence.
• Include a well-defined thesis statement at the end of the introductory section.
• Your reader should understand the issue you are discussing. Explain what animal testing is, provide arguments for your position, and support them with evidence from your research.
• Discuss alternative perspectives on the issue if you are working on a persuasive essay. At the same time, you need to show that your opinion is more reliable than the opposing ones.
• Remember that your paper should not be offensive. Even if you criticize animal testing, stick to the formal language and provide evidence of why this practice is harmful.

There are some important points you should avoid while working on your paper. Here are some important don’ts to remember:

• Avoid making claims if you cannot reference them. Support your arguments with evidence from the literature or credible online sources even if you are writing an opinion piece. References will help the reader to understand that your viewpoint is reliable.
• Do not go over or below the word limit. Stick to your professor’s instructions.
• Avoid copying the essays you will find online. Your paper should be plagiarism-free.
• Avoid making crucial grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the word choice and sentence structures. Check the paper several times before sending it for approval. If you are not sure whether your grammar is correct, ask a friend to look through the paper for you.

Do not forget to look at some of our free samples that will help you with your paper!

Animal Testing Hook Sentence

Your animal testing essay should start with a hook – an opening statement aiming to grab your reader’s attention. A good idea might be to use an impressive fact or statistics connected to experiments on animals:

• More than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories each year.
• Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover 99% animals used in experiments: according to it, rats, birds, reptiles, and fish are not animals.
• More than 50% adults in the US are against animal testing.

🏆 Best Animal Testing Essay Examples

• Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research? It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from […]
• Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations […]
• Cosmetic Testing on Animals The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type […]
• Animal Testing: History and Arguments Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel. […]
• Animal Testing and Ethics I believe it is also difficult to develop efficient legislation on the matter as people have different views on animal research and the line between ethical and unethical is blurred in this area.
• The Debate on Animal Testing The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal […]
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry Animal testing is the inescapable reality of medicine and industry. However, between human suffering and animal suffering, the former is more important.
• Preclinical Testing on Animals The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent […]
• Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments While discussing the use of animals in medical research according to the consequentialist perspective, it is important to state that humans’ preferences cannot be counted higher to cause animals’ suffering; humans and animals’ preferences need […]
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against In some cases, the animals are not given any painkillers because their application may alter the effect of the medication which is investigated.
• Animal Testing From Medical and Ethical Viewpoints Striving to discover and explain the peculiarities of body functioning, already ancient Greeks and Romans resorted to vivisecting pigs; the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment era witnessed animal testing becoming the leading trend and a […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions.
• Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice Such acts of violence could be partially excused by the necessity to test medications that are developed to save human lives however, this kind of testing is even more inhumane as it is ineffective in […]
• Animal Testing and Environmental Protection While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern […]
• Animal Testing for Scientific Research Despite the fact that the present-day science makes no secret of the use of animals for research purposes, not many people know what deprivation, pain, and misery those animals have to experience in laboratories.
• Animal Testing: History and Ethics Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis […]
• Animal Testing Effects on Psychological Investigation In this context, ethical considerations remain a central theme in psychological research.”Ethics in research refers to the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information […]
• Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations It is done on a molecular level by synthesizing DNA, generating sequences and then inserting the received product into the organism which will be the carrier of the outcome. Another possibility is that the time […]
• Animal Testing: Why It Is Still Being Used The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing.
• Effects of Animal Testing and Alternatives Another challenge to the proponents of animal testing is related to dosage and the time line for a study. Animal rights values rebuff the notion that animals should have an importance to human beings in […]
• Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation In spite of the fact that it is possible to find the arguments to support the idea of using animals in experiments, animal experimentation cannot be discussed as the ethical procedure because animals have the […]
• Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business This means that both humans and animals have rights that need to be respected, and that is what brings about the many dilemmas that are experienced in this field.
• Should animals be used for scientific research? Therefore, considering the benefits that have been accrued from research activities due to use of animals in scientific research, I support that animals should be used in scientific research.
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved The present paper argues that it is ethically justified to use animals in research settings if the goals of the research process are noble and oriented towards the advancement of human life.
• Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products.
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
• Use of Animals in Biological Testing Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals.
• Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law Vaccines and treatment regimes for various diseases that previously led to the death of humans were all discovered through research on animals.
• Experimentation on Animals However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.
• Psychoactive Drug Testing on Animals The alterations in behavioral traits of animals due to psychoactive drugs are primarily attributed to the changes in the brain functions or inhibition of certain brain components in animals which ultimately translates to changes in […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause […]

📌 Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

• Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing In The Cosmetics Industry
• Animal Testing – Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted
• Essay Animal Testing and In Vitro Testing as a Replacement
• Animal Testing : A Better Knowledge Of Human Body
• The Importance Of Animal Testing For Evaluating Consumer Safety
• The Issues on Animal Testing and the Alternative Procedures to Avoid the Use of the Inhuman Experimentation
• An Alternative to the Harsh and Unnecessary Practices of Animal Testing for Products, Drugs, Chemicals and Other Research
• The Unethical Use of Animals and the Need to Ban Animal Testing for Medical Research Purposes in the United States
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing for the Purpose of Clinical Research
• An Argument Against Animal Testing and the Banning of the Practice in the United States
• The Debate About the Ethics of Animal Testing and Its Effects on Us
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing as Beneficial to Human Health Research
• Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
• The Principles of the Animal Testing From the Human Perspective
• The Ethical Issues on the Practice of Animal Testing to Test Cosmetics and Drugs
• Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Cruelty

🎯 Most Interesting Animal Testing Topics to Write about

• An Argument Against Animal Testing of Consumer Products and Drugs
• The Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
• How Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical
• Ways To Improve Animal Welfare After Premising The Animal Testing
• Animal Testing – Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong?
• Animal Testing And Its Impact On The Environment
• Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
• Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
• Animal Testing And People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
• Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
• A History and the Types of Animal Testing in the Medical Area
• Argumentation on Medical Benefits of Animal Testing
• An Analysis of the Concept of Animal Testing Which Lowers the Standard of Human Life
• Is The Humane Society International Gave For Animal Testing
• A Discussion of Whether Animal Testing Is Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
• The Ethics Of Animal Testing For Vaccine Development And Potential Alternatives
• The Good and Bad of Human Testing and Animal Testing
• What Should the Government Do About Animal Testing?
• Why Does Animal Testing Lower Our Standard of Living?
• Should Animals Be Used in Research?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Accepted in the World?
• How Does Technology Impact Animal Testing?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?
• Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
• Can the Animal Testing Done to Find Cures for Diseases Be Humane?
• Does Animal Testing Really Work?
• Why Can’t Alternatives Like Computers Replace Research Animals?
• Should Animal Testing Continue to Test Cures for Human Diseases?
• How Does Animal Testing Effect Medicine?
• Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
• What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing?
• Why Can Animal Testing Save Our Lives?
• Is Stem Cell Research Beginning of the End of Animal Testing?
• Do Beauty Products Suffer From Negative Publicity if They Conduct Trials on Animals?
• Should Medicine Trials Be Conducted?
• Can Results of Animal Testing Be Generalized to Adults?
• What Are the Origin and History of Animal Testing?
• Why Are Animals Needed to Screen Consumer Products for Safety When Products Tested by Alternative Methods, Are Available?
• How Much Does an Animal Suffer Due to Testing?
• What Is the Effectiveness of Animal Rights Groups in Stopping Animal Testing?
• How Do We Learn From Biomedical Research Using Animals?
• Who Cares for Animals in Research?
• How Do Laboratory Animal Science Professionals Feel About Their Work?
• Why Are There Increasing Numbers of Mice, Rats, and Fish Used in Research?
• How Can We Be Sure Lost or Stolen Pets Are Not Used in Research?
• Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
• Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
• Animal Welfare Ideas
• Bioethics Titles
• Wildlife Ideas
• Extinction Research Topics
• Hunting Questions
• Genetic Engineering Topics
• Zoo Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/

"105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

• Essay Editor

Animal Testing should Be Banned Essay

1. introduction.

The practice of animal testing has long been a subject of ethical and scientific debate. This essay aims to analyze the considerations surrounding the banning of animal testing from multiple viewpoints. The topic is of utmost significance in the fields of science, medicine, and ethics as it directly impacts the development and safety of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and various consumer products. By providing a comprehensive overview of the ethical and scientific implications of banning animal testing, this essay seeks to shed light on the complexities and multifaceted nature of the issue at hand. To understand the significance of banning animal testing, it is crucial to delve into the historical and contemporary contexts that have shaped its prevalence in scientific research. The ethical concerns regarding the treatment of animals in laboratories and the validity of using animal models to predict human responses to substances will be explored. Furthermore, the scientific justifications for and against animal testing in the development of medical treatments and consumer products will be critically examined. By addressing these complexities, this essay aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the ethical and scientific considerations that underpin the debate on banning animal testing.

1.1. Background and Importance of Animal Testing

Animal testing has been a crucial component of scientific research for many decades, playing a significant role in the development of medicines, vaccines, and other medical treatments. The use of animals in research has helped researchers gain valuable insights into various diseases and conditions, leading to numerous medical advancements that have saved countless lives. Furthermore, animal testing is essential for ensuring the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical and cosmetic products before they are released to the public. It provides valuable data on the potential risks and benefits of these products, helping to protect human health and well-being. The importance of animal testing is also evident in its contribution to the understanding of biological processes and the development of new technologies. Through the use of animal models, scientists have been able to study complex biological systems, investigate disease mechanisms, and test innovative medical devices. Moreover, animal research has paved the way for groundbreaking discoveries in areas such as genetics, neurobiology, and regenerative medicine. These advancements have not only deepened our understanding of the natural world but have also opened up new possibilities for the treatment of human diseases and disabilities. Overall, the role of animal testing in advancing scientific knowledge and improving human health cannot be overstated.

2. Ethical Arguments Against Animal Testing

One of the primary ethical arguments against animal testing revolves around the concept of animal rights and welfare. Many ethical frameworks emphasize the inherent value of all living beings and assert that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary harm or suffering. This perspective considers animal testing to be a violation of the animals' rights, as they are used as mere tools for human benefit without their consent. Furthermore, the conditions in which animals are kept for testing purposes often raise concerns about their welfare, as they may experience distress, pain, and confinement. In addition, the ethical opposition to animal testing is also rooted in the principle of speciesism, which is the discrimination against individuals based on their species. This perspective argues that the use of animals in research perpetuates a hierarchical view of species, placing humans above all other creatures and justifying the exploitation of animals for our own purposes. Critics of animal testing advocate for the recognition of animals as sentient beings deserving of compassion and respect and call for the development of alternative methods that do not involve the use of animals. Ultimately, the ethical arguments against animal testing underscore the need to reevaluate our treatment of animals and strive for more humane and ethical approaches to scientific research.

2.1. Animal Rights and Welfare

Section 2.1. Animal rights and welfare delves into the ethical considerations surrounding the use of animals in scientific research. This section explores the argument that animals have inherent rights and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their utility to humans. It also examines the concept of animal welfare, which focuses on ensuring that animals are provided with proper care and living conditions. The discussion delves into the ethical implications of using animals in testing procedures, considering whether the potential benefits to humans justify the harm inflicted upon animals. Furthermore, the section delves into the concept of speciesism, which refers to the belief that humans are inherently superior to other animals and therefore have the right to use them for their own purposes. The text examines the moral implications of this belief and its influence on the treatment of animals in research settings. By addressing these ethical concerns, this section contributes to the overall exploration of the ethical and scientific considerations of banning animal testing, providing a comprehensive analysis of the complex issues at hand.

3. Scientific Advancements and Alternatives

Scientific advancements have led to the development of innovative alternatives to animal testing. Technological innovations in testing methods have provided researchers with sophisticated tools and techniques to study the effects of substances on living organisms. These advancements include in vitro testing, microfluidic chips, computer modeling, and organ-on-a-chip systems, among others. In vitro testing involves conducting experiments on cells, tissues, or organs in controlled laboratory environments, reducing the need for animal testing. Microfluidic chips allow for the manipulation of small quantities of fluids, enabling the study of biological processes on a miniature scale. Computer modeling plays a crucial role in predicting the potential toxicity of substances, allowing researchers to simulate the effects on human physiology without the use of animals. Organ-on-a-chip systems replicate the functions of human organs, providing a more accurate representation of human physiological responses than animal models. These alternatives not only eliminate the ethical concerns associated with animal testing but also offer more reliable and cost-effective methods for assessing the safety and efficacy of products. As technological advancements continue to progress, the reliance on animal testing is becoming increasingly obsolete, paving the way for a future where ethical and scientific considerations align to promote the advancement of humane research practices.

3.1. Technological Innovations in Testing Methods

In recent years, significant technological advancements have led to the development of innovative testing methods that offer promising alternatives to traditional animal testing. These methods include in vitro testing, microdosing, organ-on-a-chip technology, and computational modeling. In vitro testing involves conducting experiments on cells or tissues in a controlled environment outside of a living organism, providing valuable insights into the effects of a substance without the use of animals. Microdosing, on the other hand, involves administering small doses of a drug to human volunteers and analyzing the pharmacokinetics using sensitive analytical techniques, offering a safe and ethical alternative to animal testing. Organ-on-a-chip technology replicates the structure and function of human organs on a microscale, allowing researchers to study the effects of substances on organ systems without the need for animal testing. Furthermore, computational modeling uses computer algorithms to simulate biological processes and predict the potential toxicity of substances, offering a cost-effective and efficient alternative to animal testing. These technological innovations not only provide reliable and relevant data but also address ethical concerns surrounding animal testing, making them a promising solution for advancing scientific research while upholding ethical standards. These advancements in testing methods demonstrate the feasibility of reducing, and ultimately eliminating, the need for animal testing in the pursuit of scientific and medical progress.

4. Current Regulations and Policies

Section 4: Current Regulations and Policies The current regulations and policies regarding animal testing are a subject of global concern and debate. Many countries have implemented strict laws and guidelines for the ethical and scientific conduct of animal testing, while others have more relaxed regulations. The European Union, for example, has banned the testing of cosmetics on animals, while the United States has implemented the Animal Welfare Act to regulate the use of animals in research. Additionally, there are international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the World Organisation for Animal Health that provide guidelines and recommendations for the ethical treatment of animals in scientific research. Despite these regulations, there are still challenges and loopholes in the enforcement and implementation of animal testing policies. Some countries have limited resources and infrastructure to effectively monitor and regulate animal research, leading to potential violations of ethical standards. Moreover, the lack of standardization and harmonization of regulations across different regions poses difficulties for companies and researchers operating in multiple countries. Thus, it is crucial for policymakers and stakeholders to collaborate and establish coherent and comprehensive regulations for the ethical and scientific considerations of banning animal testing. This will ensure the protection of animal welfare while promoting the advancement of scientific research and innovation.

4.1. Global Perspectives on Animal Testing

In examining the global perspectives on animal testing, it is important to consider the diverse range of regulations and policies that exist in different countries. For instance, the European Union has made significant strides in the reduction and replacement of animal testing through the implementation of the REACH regulation, which prioritizes alternative methods and requires the use of animal testing only as a last resort. In contrast, countries like China have mandatory animal testing requirements for certain products, making it challenging for businesses to navigate the varying regulations in different markets. Furthermore, countries such as India and Israel have taken steps to ban the importation of cosmetics that have been tested on animals, reflecting a growing global trend towards more ethical and humane policies. It is also important to recognize the role of international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in establishing guidelines and standards for animal testing. These organizations play a crucial role in harmonizing regulations across different countries and promoting the development and acceptance of alternative methods. However, despite these efforts, there is still a lack of uniformity in regulations and policies on animal testing at a global level, leading to disparities in ethical standards and scientific practices. As such, there is a need for continued collaboration and dialogue among countries to address these challenges and work towards more consistent and ethical approaches to animal testing on a global scale.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the ethical and scientific considerations of banning animal testing are complex and multi-faceted. Throughout this essay, we have explored the various arguments both in favor of and against the ban, considering the ethical implications of using animals for scientific research, as well as the potential impact on scientific progress and human health. It is clear that the issue is not black and white, and there are valid points on both sides of the debate. In summary, while banning animal testing may align with ethical principles of animal welfare and rights, it also raises concerns about the potential consequences for medical advancements and the development of safe products. As we move forward, it is important to continue exploring alternative methods, such as in vitro testing and computational modeling, while also prioritizing the refinement and reduction of animal testing where it is still deemed necessary. Ultimately, finding a balance between ethical considerations and scientific progress will be crucial in addressing the complexities of this issue.

5.1. Summary of Key Points

In summary, this essay has examined the ethical and scientific considerations of banning animal testing. We have explored the moral implications of using animals for testing, the development of alternative methods, and the potential impact of a ban on scientific research and human health. The discussion has highlighted the need for a balanced approach that considers both the welfare of animals and the advancement of medical knowledge. We have also emphasized the importance of promoting the development and adoption of non-animal testing methods, as well as the need for continued dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders in the scientific and ethical communities. Ultimately, the essay underscores the complexity of the issue and the importance of thoughtful and informed decision-making in this area.

Related articles

The influence of francis bacon on modern philosophy and science.

1. Introduction While it is easy to appreciate the importance of the contribution which philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle or Galileo have made to our knowledge of the universe, the influence of their influence on the course of future philosophy and science is inestimable. One can easily overlook an important shadow of the past. There have been philosophers who, while they are no longer mentioned as contributions to knowledge, have had the most important influence on the course of ph ...

The Impact of pH Levels on Soil Health and Plant Growth

1. Introduction Soil pH is an important factor in soil fertility. How pH affects plants and soil is well understood; however, despite the continuous accumulation of data on soil pH, interpreting these data to allow direct economic benefits to producers is difficult. Many factors make testing and interpreting soil pH difficult, including plant adaptation and survival in extreme pH levels. Soil pH measurement often does not portray soil in its natural state because of its ionic charge. The pH mea ...

The Impact of Biotechnology on the Production and Quality of Alimentos

1. Introduction Crops and their products are among the most important commodities exchanged and consumed by people all over the world. Whenever we sit at the table or in front of a refrigerator, practically all the food we are going to enjoy is the product of genetic improvement of some of the plant, animal, or microbial species that man turned into his helpers in the task of survival. The current transformation of our environment, from predominantly natural to predominantly anthropogenic, is c ...

An Analysis of the Major Environmental Problems Impacting Our Planet Today

1. Introduction The increasing evidence of an ecological deficit extending beyond anything that could be ascribed to 'bad practice' suggests a new level of urgency to the predicament of the planet. While remaining conscious of the positive outcomes arising from the universal concern for the environment demonstrated by international gatherings such as the Earth Summits I and II and the Climate Summits in Kyoto and The Hague, a realistic assessment of the success achieved by the intervention of d ...

The Impact of Genetic Modification on the Conservation of Oxen

1. Introduction Modern technology has had a profound impact on maintaining genetic resources for food and agriculture and the conservation of both wild and domestic species. Genotype characterization and sperm and embryo cryopreservation, new reproductive techniques, and gene modification (somatic and germ-line transfer) have ushered in a new era of conserving genetic resources that had already been compromised fundamentally by the decline in the number of unique breeds and rare species and the ...

The Impact of Language Evolution on Communication: A Study of "VZD L V N"

1. Introduction There are many puzzles in the evolution of language - three prominent ones include establishing vocal learning as a critical mechanism, explaining why words are used to refer from peers, and understanding the reasons behind language's extensive diversity. Most models that address the last question focus on speaker-listener coordination. Specifically, they set out to explain why language needs to be learned from speakers by children, and why the resulting linguistic conventions n ...

The Impact of VZD L Technology on Modern Communication Systems

1. Introduction Optical fiber technology has expanded to all telecommunication areas. The exploitation of the vast bandwidth offered by silica fiber has changed our life and will continue to drastically change the way we communicate for many years to come. The technology of ridged silicon V-grooves for aligning photonic devices has made far the reliability of silica fiber communication systems. It ensures low loss for distributing Optical Time Domain Reflectometry (OTDR) signals to locate fault ...

The Role of Renewable Energy in Combating Climate Change

1. Introduction to Climate Change and Renewable Energy The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. It has undergone significant fluctuations during the planet's 4.54 billion years of history. There have been periods of warming and cooling, as well as sea level rise and decline. However, the current process of climate change that the planet is experiencing has entered a period of frantic acceleration, directly affecting all countries, ecosystems, and human societies, propelling the Earth ...

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available

Animal testing should be banned: here’s why

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

Select results items first to use the cite, email, save, and export options

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

Publication: The Mass Media, , University of Massachusetts - Boston , Boston, MA

The vast majority of individuals may not realize the amount of testing their products have gone through to ensure their safety before they reach the shelves of drugstores such as CVS and Walgreens. Well, it’s a long journey. For many years, animal testing has been a widely controversial topic. While some say animal testing is necessary to make new discoveries in medicine and move scientific research forward, others may strongly oppose this theory.

The organization named People For Ethical Treatment of Animals is one of the largest non-profit animal organizations that stands up against animal abuse. In the United States, nearly one million animals are kept confined in cruelty-testing laboratories, being used for innumerable experiments. Animals have a right to their lives just as we do. Each year, millions of animals die from testing....

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Yes, Animal Testing Should Be Illegal — Here’s Why

Published Feb. 1 2023, 10:49 a.m. ET

It’s probably not surprising to find out that a lot of environmentalists think that animal testing should be illegal . And while one of the main reasons is obvious — the practice is cruel — there are some other factors involved too.

When it comes to such a big topic, learning more information is crucial. As a consumer, this allows you to make more informed choices and use your buying power for good .

Animal testing has proven to be ineffective.

Despite what some companies might lead you to believe, animal testing actually isn’t all that effective.

Around 96 percent of drugs that successfully pass preclinical trials — which includes animal testing — then fail to enter the market. “The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests,” according to a study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Some might argue that animal testing can still produce useful information, but the study states that the risk isn’t worth it. The results of animal experiments can be misleading, which can cause more harm than good. So while you might get information, it won’t necessarily be useful, and it could even take away resources from experiments with more potential and reliability.

As a result of various factors — bias, poor methodology, etc. — animal testing is considered “highly unlikely to yield useful information about human diseases,” according to the study.

This all might come as a shock, considering the fact that businesses have been engaging in animal testing for years . It’s possible that you were even under the impression that these tests were necessary and the only way to get information.

According to CNN , 10 states have banned the sale of cosmetic products that are tested on animals. New York is the most recent state to take action , citing cruelty, ineffectiveness, and the availability of alternative methods. Hopefully more states will follow suit.

Many companies have banned the practice.

L'Oréal claims that it does not conduct animal testing, but the major beauty brand is not actually cruelty-free, as it does allow its products to be tested on animals.

To further prove that animal testing isn’t necessary, thousands of companies have put a stop to it. Well-known brands such as Dove, Herbal Essences, Dr. Bronner’s, Seventh Generation, and Aveda are all cruelty-free , according to PETA.

In an article from 1989, The New York Times reported on the quiet disentanglement from animal testing . And while we’ve made some progress now — more than 30 years later — not enough has changed.

The issues that were addressed back then are the same as what people bring up in conversations today. Companies were unsure of other methods, still under the strong impression that animal testing was necessary for safety reasons.

The only difference is that today, we know this reason is irrelevant — yet it’s still used as an excuse.

The transition away from animal testing has been a slow one, to say the least. Despite modern alternatives and never-ending protests, only some states have banned the practice and many companies still partake.

Thankfully, even though the progress we’ve made is somewhat minimal, it’s still progress. It seems that if current changes are indicative of the future, then we can look forward to more positive news regarding animal testing .

All of this just goes to show that when consumers demand changes and take action, they can get results, even if those results take a while.

Virginia Passes Act Banning Animal Testing for Cosmetics

The FDA Is No Longer Requiring Animal Testing for New Drugs

These Brutal Cosmetic Testing Methods Are Why We Need Cruelty-Free Makeup

Latest Veganism News and Updates

• ABOUT Green Matters
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• CONNECT with Green Matters
• Link to Facebook
• Link to Instagram
• Contact us by Email

Opt-out of personalized ads

© Copyright 2024 Green Matters. Green Matters is a registered trademark. All Rights Reserved. People may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.

Essay Service Examples Social Issues Animal Testing

Animal Testing should Be Banned

Introduction

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Animal Testing

Humans and animals: both beings that feel pain and have a soul. What separates humans and animals...

“Each year, more than 100 million animals- including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits,...

• 21st Century

At what price do other living beings gain the right to their lives? As humans, our species have...

Imagine being trapped in a cage that is about the same size as you, being burned, poisoned,...

Animal experimentation is the use of non-human animals in experiments that seek to control the...

According to Aysha Akhtar, certified neurologist and preventive medicine/public health specialist,...

• Conversation

This comes as a result of the need to test cosmetics, new drugs and the effects of chemicals on...

Animals are used in scientific research, help us to gain significant knowledge about human...

• 3D Printing

Throughout our life there is only one thing that remains unchanged, this is the progress of...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — Reasons to Stop Animal Testing

Reasons to Stop Animal Testing

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 716 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 716 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Why We Must Stop Animal Testing

Works cited.

• Animal Justice. (n.d.). Animal Testing.
• Cruelty Free International. (n.d.). Animal testing. https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/what-animal-testing
• European Commission. (n.d.). Alternatives to animal testing.
• Ferdowsian, H. R., & Beck, N. (2011). Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research. PLoS ONE, 6(9).
• PETA. (n.d.). The Issues: Animals Used for Experimentation. https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/
• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. (n.d.). Animal Testing and Medicine. https://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltestingandmedicine
• Ranganathan, J., & Ranganathan, D. (2014). Animal testing and its alternatives - the most promising and reliable methods. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 24(1), 1–6.
• Saunders, N., & Roughley, M. (2017). The ethics of animal research. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 189(5), E187–E188.
• Singer, P. (2015). Ethics and animal experimentation: What is debated? Journal of Medical Ethics , 41(1), 1–3.
• The Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). Animal Testing 101.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1634 words

1 pages / 603 words

1 pages / 468 words

2 pages / 752 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Testing

Animal testing is a worldwide controversy that is constantly battling between the benefits and drawbacks of using animals for scientific and commercial testing. They have been used for many things like testing make-up products, [...]

The issue of whether animal testing should be banned has sparked intense debate among scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and animal rights advocates. This essay aims to analyze the arguments both for and against banning animal [...]

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, is a controversial practice that has been used for centuries to advance scientific knowledge and develop life-saving medical treatments. However, animal testing raises [...]

Animal testing has been a common practice in scientific research and testing for decades. The use of animals, however, remains a highly controversial issue. Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation. [...]

Introduction to the issue of animal testing in the cosmetic industry The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing Arguments in favor of animal testing, including potential medical advancements [...]

“Opinion and Evidence for the Need to Move Away from Animal Testing” was an article published by The Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) on 2nd Nov, 2017. An article stated that how the author clearly convinces [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Invertebrates
• Best Dog Collar
• Best Smart Dog Collar
• Halo Dog Collar
• Spoton vs Halo Collar
• Wagz Freedom Dog Collar
• SpotOn Dog Collar
• Best Dog Fence
• Best Invisible Dog Fence
• Dog Accessories
• Dog Training
• Dog Harness
• Dog Leashes
• Dog Grooming
• CBD for Dogs
• Dog Age Calculator
• Dog BMI Calculator
• Dog Chocolate Toxicity Calculator
• Dog Food Calculator
• Dog Harness Size Calculator
• Dog Life Expectancy Calculator
• Puppy Weight Calculator
• Dog Water Intake Calculator
• Dog Crate Size Calculator
• Dog Onion Toxicity Calculator
• Dog Raisin Toxicity Calculator
• Pet Sitter Rates Calculator
• Dog Groomer Tip Calculator
• Dog Quality of Life Calculator
• Cost of Owning a Dog Calculator
• Raw Dog Food Calculator
• Dog Dad Shirts
• Dog Mom Shirts
• Automatic Litter Box
• Cat Accessories
• Cat Collars
• Cat Grooming
• Cat Mom Shirts
• Animal Abuse
• Animal Laws
• Animal Rights
• Animal Testing
• How to Help
• Facts & Stats
• Our Campaigns

Animal Testing Should Be Banned Completely – A Heart-Wrecking Situation

Monika Martyn

January 19, 2023.

WorldAnimalFoundation.org is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Learn More

It’s hard to imagine, as an intelligent species, we’re still discussing animal experimentation. There’s no doubt that animal testing is to the apparent benefit of people. However, that doesn’t make it right that over 100 million innocent animals suffer for our well-being.

Animal experimentation needs to end. It’s not a question of right or wrong. Animals have feelings and the right to live without cruelty inflicted on them for the sake of testing chemicals. Period.

So why do we continue to abuse, cage, cripple, infect, and kill dogs, cats, monkeys, mice, and rats in animal experiments? This is not about thanking the cosmetic industry (Europe, India, Israel) for condemning and banning animal tests. It’s about saving the 100 million abused animals in American laboratories.

Here’s what you need to know to stop the abuse and end animal experiments.

Why Is Animal Testing Bad?

It just is. Animal testing andanimal experiments inflict inhumane suffering on animals. These creatures never consented to have experiments conducted on their bodies, skin, or DNA.

The debate over whether it’s right divides the room. Many people believe animal testing is barbaric and outdated. Others argue that scientific progress has helped save millions of human lives.

It’s Unethical

There are billions of great people in this world. Together, we need to end torturing 100 million animals. Animals experience pain, loneliness, fear, and emotions, just like us. When they have to endure scientific and medical experiments, it’s incomprehensible.

Animal Testing Is Unreliable

Animals and humans share some similarities. It’s one of the main reasons the debate gets so heated: animals have feelings too.

Our differences contribute to the failure of human clinical trials. Many of the pharmaceuticals end up being too dangerous and ineffective for human consumption. That means we subject innocent animals to horrendous suffering for a small return of success.

Up to 95% of experimental drugs that pass animal tests fail in human and clinical trials. 

Additionally, some medicines that may work for us are dangerous for animals. For example, aspirin is toxic to animals but is safe for human use. We wouldn’t be able to get it from pharmacies if it had been tested using current animal testing standards.

It’s Bad Science

People believe in science as proof. Therefore, according to the National Institute of Health, 95 out of 100 drugs developed with lab animals fail. In no other facet of life would we accept these results as a ‘good idea.’ It’s proof that animal experiments don’t work.

Animal Testing Is Dangerous for Humans

Sometimes math and science don’t work. A few years ago, big pharma pushed a new wonder drug, Vioxx, to treat arthritis patients. It was a welcomed relief. Lab monkeys and five other animal species showed improvements on paper.

Yet, in the aftermath, patients who took the prescribed pills faced a graver issue. Studies showing 320,000 heart attack and stroke victims proved that lab results didn’t help humans. Sadly, 140,000 people died because of Vioxx.

Another clinical trial ended badly for patients who either suffered severe liver damage or death from Hepatitis B due to a drug experiment conducted on animals.

In 2016, another miracle drug that was reportedly going to treat all kinds of conditions killed a volunteer and left four patients with devastating brain damage. This experimental drug passed muster on mice, rats, dogs, and monkeys. Sadly, nobody reported how those animal subjects felt after having the medication forced on them.

In a new monoclonal antibody treatment tested on monkeys at 500 times the recommended human dose, human volunteers suffered near-fatal allergic reactions.

Human beings often volunteer for human trials to help find cures for human diseases. Animal research facilities should promote the health of animals, not human health.

It’s Wasteful

No doubt, we want our loved ones to receive the best care. Unfortunately, animal experiments only make the grade about half the time. The rest end up in the trash as failed and worthless. The sad part is that research using lab animals takes enormous resources and squanders money, time, human intelligence, and creativity. 

All that waste causes human suffering on top of animal suffering. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, “We’ve cured mice of cancer for decades. It simply didn’t work on humans.”

Cancer is nasty. But if animals ultimately fail in medical research or other laboratory experiments, why don’t researchers use advanced technology to test harmful substances?

It’s Archaic

Scientists have compassion too. Many have created modern, effective non-animal testing methods that are cost-effective, fast, and deliver more accurate results without animal testing. These non-animal methods include micro-dosing, in vitro testing, organs-on-chips , simulators, and advanced computer modeling technology.

Humans share genetic information and DNA with plants and animals. For example, cows and humans share about 80%, and common fruit flies about 61%. A banana has 60% human DNA.

It’s possible to look at this debate from two sides. One is to explore the common DNA and use it to our benefit. The other is if they share that much genetic material with us, does it make sense to harm them?

Animals Feel Pain

Evolutionary biologist Marc Bekoff and his many colleagues have done all the necessary research to prove animals feel pain. Mammals share strong similarities in the nervous system, chemical transmitters, emotional states, and perceptual tools to prove animals experience pain. That they experience pain differently is irrelevant. 

The Animal Welfare Act should protect animals. Yet lab animals like mice, rats, reptiles, amphibians, and birds used in labs don’t fall under their protection. Instead, lab animals endure inhumane procedures and treatments like scorched skin, immobilization, inhaling toxic fumes, and holes drilled in their skull and spinal cords crushed.

Often, lab animals receive no administered pain relief and are left to suffer intense pain. These institutions,  by law or regulations, don’t have to provide any. 

Yet, in experiments, when many animals like rats, mice, and chickens trapped in barren cages have access to self-administered pain relief, they use it to reduce the pain. Wild animals also nurse their wounds, show distress, and seek shelter.

They learn to avoid situations that relate to bad experiences with pain. This action indicates that animals are aware of the pain and can associate it with experiences from their past.

It’s Unnecessary

It’s challenging to review pictures of animals used without consent and not form an opinion.

The main reason for banning animal testing, aside from sparing animals the pain, is that we don’t need it. Animal testing should not be part of a university lab experiment paid for by the tax-payer who is against animal torture in the first place.

Animal Testing Is Dangerous for Non-Human Animals

That is the point. It’s not only dangerous, cruel, painful, and inhumane; some of the methods harken back to medieval torture chambers.

Imagine mice, rabbits , rats, and guinea pigs with their eyes burned from drip chemicals or toxic potions smeared into their exposed skin tissue without pain medication.

It’s hard to think about a human consenting to the Draize or LD50 Test. This test measuring toxicity often leads to blindness, scarring, death, and insurmountable pain. 

Years from now, the LD50 will be on display in museums as one of the wickedest torture animal tests. This substance test is inflicted on animals to be fatal in 50% of the test subjects. Researchers strap animals to tubes and inject the test substance directly into the sequestered animals’ stomachs. Until they die, which can take days or weeks, animals suffer.

The animals die agonizingly, suffering internal bleeding, diarrhea, vomiting, paralysis, convulsions, and horrendous pain. Death becomes their relief.

Facts About Animal Testing

The first fact is that animals suffer. The second is that we must stop animal testing.

The law requires 12,000 animals subjected to over 50 experiments to endure for a company to register a single pesticide. No one argues that pesticides must meet safety standards.

According to the statistics reviewed by the National Institute of Health, only 5% of drugs tested on animals show positive results, while 95% are worthless. That is a bad score. Sixty percent of no-consent animals are exposed to biomedical research and product safety testing.

According to the Humane Society, animals and humans are very different. Animal subjects don’t suffer from the same illnesses as humans. So why are we testing on animals when they don’t contract many human illnesses? HIV, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and certain types of cancer are human diseases.

Substances that cause cancer in people affect animals differently, and only one-third cause cancer in animals. Animal research conducted on over 100 mouse cell types discovered that regulating genes in mice match human DNA. How can you create an exact science and get valid human responses on that foundation?

How to Stop Animal Testing?

Every day, we use products that cost an animal its life or severe pain. Awareness campaigns are only a starting point. Choosing animal cruelty-free products is another. The science supporting animal testing stands on faulty ground. Instead, all industries should concentrate on using new methods and technologies to conduct research that works.

Some industries, like cosmetic companies, are making strides and not  testing on animals.  However, there’s much room for improvement in the household cleaner, deodorant, fem hygiene, and thousands of pharmaceutical products.

Animal rights activists paved the way to end suffering for endangered species , lab animals, and domesticated animals.

Alternative Ways of Experimenting

People are smart. Technology has exploded in the last few decades. We can use human cells and tissue, 3D printing, robots, and computer modeling to get more accurate results faster. They’re also cost-effective and don’t subject animals to cruel and unnecessary animal tests.

If this was painful to read, the article has done its job.

In conclusion, animal testing and research must be banned worldwide, as it is against animals’ rights and causes unwanted suffering to lab animals. Also, now there are other available methods to test product toxicity. Cruelty against animals should not be taken lightly just because they are not “humans.”

We’re on the precipice of human evolution and developing a united mindset to stop animal testing once and for all.

Every individual has the power to influence change. Choose cruelty-free products, become involved, champion the cause, and help millions of animals. The USA Government has finally passed a law banning animal testing on cosmetics.

Join the conversation and become an animal advocate. You are the difference!

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Latest Posts

Animal Shelter Statistics 2024 – Together We Are All in for Animals!

How Many Vegans Are In the US? Numbers and Facts in 2024

Pet Industry Statistics, Impact & Trends in 2024 and Beyond

Pet Spending Statistics & Trends in 2024: What Pet Owners Invest In

Pet Ownership Statistics – Latest Numbers and Trends in 2024

Discovering The Most Consumed Meat In The World in 2024

Exactly How Many Cats Are in the World in 2024?

9 Dog Breeds That Can’t Swim – Know Their Limits & Needs

Shark Attack Statistics & Trends in 2024: What the Latest Data Reveals?

Dog Attacks by Breed 2024 – Dog Bite Statistics & State Fatality Data

Get updates on the latest posts and more from World Animal Foundation straight to your inbox.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cambridge Open

The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Introduction

Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry. 1 Nonhuman animal (hereafter “animal”) experimentation falls under two categories: basic (i.e., investigation of basic biology and human disease) and applied (i.e., drug research and development and toxicity and safety testing). Regardless of its categorization, animal experimentation is intended to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. Despite its use of immense resources, the animal suffering involved, and its impact on human health, the question of animal experimentation’s efficacy has been subjected to little systematic scrutiny. 2

Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based , animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard. This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity. A survey published in 2008 of anecdotal cases and statements given in support of animal experimentation demonstrates how it has not and could not be validated as a necessary step in biomedical research, and the survey casts doubt on its predictive value. 3 I show that animal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes, 4 that it is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas, 5 and that existing literature demonstrates the unreliability of animal experimentation, thereby undermining scientific arguments in its favor. I further show that the collective harms that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals. 6

Problems of Successful Translation to Humans of Data from Animal Experimentation

Although the unreliability and limitations of animal experimentation have increasingly been acknowledged, there remains a general confidence within much of the biomedical community that they can be overcome. 7 However, three major conditions undermine this confidence and explain why animal experimentation, regardless of the disease category studied, fails to reliably inform human health: (1) the effects of the laboratory environment and other variables on study outcomes, (2) disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, and (3) species differences in physiology and genetics. I argue for the critical importance of each of these conditions.

The Influence of Laboratory Procedures and Environments on Experimental Results

Laboratory procedures and conditions exert influences on animals’ physiology and behaviors that are difficult to control and that can ultimately impact research outcomes. Animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives. Captivity and the common features of biomedical laboratories—such as artificial lighting, human-produced noises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typical behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among animals. 8 Among the types of laboratory-generated distress is the phenomenon of contagious anxiety. 9 Cortisone levels rise in monkeys watching other monkeys being restrained for blood collection. 10 Blood pressure and heart rates elevate in rats watching other rats being decapitated. 11 Routine laboratory procedures, such as catching an animal and removing him or her from the cage, in addition to the experimental procedures, cause significant and prolonged elevations in animals’ stress markers. 12 These stress-related changes in physiological parameters caused by the laboratory procedures and environments can have significant effects on test results. 13 Stressed rats, for example, develop chronic inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage, which add variables that can confound data. 14

A variety of conditions in the laboratory cause changes in neurochemistry, genetic expression, and nerve regeneration. 15 In one study, for example, mice were genetically altered to develop aortic defects. Yet, when the mice were housed in larger cages, those defects almost completely disappeared. 16 Providing further examples, typical noise levels in laboratories can damage blood vessels in animals, and even the type of flooring on which animals are tested in spinal cord injury experiments can affect whether a drug shows a benefit. 17

In order to control for potential confounders, some investigators have called for standardization of laboratory settings and procedures. 18 One notable effort was made by Crabbe et al. in their investigation of the potential confounding influences of the laboratory environment on six mouse behaviors that are commonly studied in neurobehavioral experiments. Despite their “extraordinary lengths to equate test apparatus, testing protocols, and all possible features of animal husbandry” across three laboratories, there were systematic differences in test results in these labs. 19 Additionally, different mouse strains varied markedly in all behavioral tests, and for some tests the magnitude of genetic differences depended on the specific testing laboratory. The results suggest that there are important influences of environmental conditions and procedures specific to individual laboratories that can be difficult—perhaps even impossible—to eliminate. These influences can confound research results and impede extrapolation to humans.

The Discordance between Human Diseases and Animal Models of Diseases

The lack of sufficient congruence between animal models and human diseases is another significant obstacle to translational reliability. Human diseases are typically artificially induced in animals, but the enormous difficulty of reproducing anything approaching the complexity of human diseases in animal models limits their usefulness. 20 Even if the design and conduct of an animal experiment are sound and standardized, the translation of its results to the clinic may fail because of disparities between the animal experimental model and the human condition. 21

Stroke research presents one salient example of the difficulties in modeling human diseases in animals. Stroke is relatively well understood in its underlying pathology. Yet accurately modeling the disease in animals has proven to be an exercise in futility. To address the inability to replicate human stroke in animals, many assert the need to use more standardized animal study design protocols. This includes the use of animals who represent both genders and wide age ranges, who have comorbidities and preexisting conditions that occur naturally in humans, and who are consequently given medications that are indicated for human patients. 22 In fact, a set of guidelines, named STAIR, was implemented by a stroke roundtable in 1999 (and updated in 2009) to standardize protocols, limit the discrepancies, and improve the applicability of animal stroke experiments to humans. 23 One of the most promising stroke treatments later to emerge was NXY-059, which proved effective in animal experiments. However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards. 24 Despite such vigorous efforts, the development of STAIR and other criteria has yet to make a recognizable impact in clinical translation. 25

Under closer scrutiny, it is not difficult to surmise why animal stroke experiments fail to successfully translate to humans even with new guidelines. Standard stroke medications will likely affect different species differently. There is little evidence to suggest that a female rat, dog, or monkey sufficiently reproduces the physiology of a human female. Perhaps most importantly, reproducing the preexisting conditions of stroke in animals proves just as difficult as reproducing stroke pathology and outcomes. For example, most animals don’t naturally develop significant atherosclerosis, a leading contributor to ischemic stroke. In order to reproduce the effects of atherosclerosis in animals, researchers clamp their blood vessels or artificially insert blood clots. These interventions, however, do not replicate the elaborate pathology of atherosclerosis and its underlying causes. Reproducing human diseases in animals requires reproducing the predisposing diseases, also a formidable challenge. The inability to reproduce the disease in animals so that it is congruent in relevant respects with human stroke has contributed to a high failure rate in drug development. More than 114 potential therapies initially tested in animals failed in human trials. 26

Further examples of repeated failures based on animal models include drug development in cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and inflammatory conditions. Animal cancer models in which tumors are artificially induced have been the basic translational model used to study key physiological and biochemical properties in cancer onset and propagation and to evaluate novel treatments. Nevertheless, significant limitations exist in the models’ ability to faithfully mirror the complex process of human carcinogenesis. 27 These limitations are evidenced by the high (among the highest of any disease category) clinical failure rate of cancer drugs. 28 Analyses of common mice ALS models demonstrate significant differences from human ALS. 29 The inability of animal ALS models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized. 30 More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival. 31 Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI. 32 In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals. 33 Additionally, even after success in animals, around 172 and 150 drug development failures have been identified in the treatment of human AD 34 and inflammatory diseases, 35 respectively.

The high clinical failure rate in drug development across all disease categories is based, at least in part, on the inability to adequately model human diseases in animals and the poor predictability of animal models. 36 A notable systematic review, published in 2007, compared animal experimentation results with clinical trial findings across interventions aimed at the treatment of head injury, respiratory distress syndrome, osteoporosis, stroke, and hemorrhage. 37 The study found that the human and animal results were in accordance only half of the time. In other words, the animal experiments were no more likely than a flip of the coin to predict whether those interventions would benefit humans.

In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. 38 More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent. 39 The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests. 40

Usually, when an animal model is found wanting, various reasons are proffered to explain what went wrong—poor methodology, publication bias, lack of preexisting disease and medications, wrong gender or age, and so on. These factors certainly require consideration, and recognition of each potential difference between the animal model and the human disease motivates renewed efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific progress is sometimes made by such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals. Too often ignored is the well-substantiated idea that these models are, for reasons summarized here, intrinsically lacking in relevance to, and thus highly unlikely to yield useful information about, human diseases. 41

Interspecies Differences in Physiology and Genetics

Ultimately, even if considerable congruence were shown between an animal model and its corresponding human disease, interspecies differences in physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics would significantly limit the reliability of animal studies, even after a substantial investment to improve such studies. In spinal cord injury, for example, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of numerous interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior. 42 The micropathology of spinal cord injury, injury repair mechanisms, and recovery from injury varies greatly among different strains of rats and mice. A systematic review found that even among the most standardized and methodologically superior animal experiments, testing results assessing the effectiveness of methylprednisolone for spinal cord injury treatment varied considerably among species. 43 This suggests that factors inherent to the use of animals account for some of the major differences in results.

Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results. 44 In one study, responses to 12 different behavioral measures of pain sensitivity, which are important markers of spinal cord injury, varied among 11 strains of mice, with no clear-cut patterns that allowed prediction of how each strain would respond. 45 These differences influenced how the animals responded to the injury and to experimental therapies. A drug might be shown to help one strain of mice recover but not another. Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date. 46

Further exemplifying the importance of physiological differences among species, a 2013 study reported that the mouse models used extensively to study human inflammatory diseases (in sepsis, burns, infection, and trauma) have been misleading. The study found that mice differ greatly from humans in their responses to inflammatory conditions. Mice differed from humans in what genes were turned on and off and in the timing and duration of gene expression. The mouse models even differed from one another in their responses. The investigators concluded that “our study supports higher priority to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory disease.” 47 The different genetic responses between mice and humans are likely responsible, at least in part, for the high drug failure rate. The authors stated that every one of almost 150 clinical trials that tested candidate agents’ ability to block inflammatory responses in critically ill patients failed.

Wide differences have also become apparent in the regulation of the same genes, a point that is readily seen when observing differences between human and mouse livers. 48 Consistent phenotypes (observable physical or biochemical characteristics) are rarely obtained by modification of the same gene, even among different strains of mice. 49 Gene regulation can substantially differ among species and may be as important as the presence or absence of a specific gene. Despite the high degree of genome conservation, there are critical differences in the order and function of genes among species. To use an analogy: as pianos have the same keys, humans and other animals share (largely) the same genes. Where we mostly differ is in the way the genes or keys are expressed. For example, if we play the keys in a certain order, we hear Chopin; in a different order, we hear Ray Charles; and in yet a different order, it’s Jerry Lee Lewis. In other words, the same keys or genes are expressed, but their different orders result in markedly different outcomes.

Recognizing the inherent genetic differences among species as a barrier to translation, researches have expressed considerable enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) animals, including transgenic mice models, wherein human genes are inserted into the mouse genome. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice. For example, a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice. 50 When the human gene that makes this protein was expressed in genetically altered mice, it had the opposite effect from that in humans: it caused loss of blood sugar control in mice. Use of GM mice has failed to successfully model human diseases and to translate into clinical benefit across many disease categories. 51 Perhaps the primary reason why GM animals are unlikely to be much more successful than other animal models in translational medicine is the fact that the “humanized” or altered genes are still in nonhuman animals.

In many instances, nonhuman primates (NHPs) are used instead of mice or other animals, with the expectation that NHPs will better mimic human results. However, there have been sufficient failures in translation to undermine this optimism. For example, NHP models have failed to reproduce key features of Parkinson’s disease, both in function and in pathology. 52 Several therapies that appeared promising in both NHPs and rat models of Parkinson’s disease showed disappointing results in humans. 53 The campaign to prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in millions of women to prevent cardiovascular disease was based in large part on experiments on NHPs. HRT is now known to increase the risk of these diseases in women. 54

HIV/AIDS vaccine research using NHPs represents one of the most notable failures in animal experimentation translation. Immense resources and decades of time have been devoted to creating NHP (including chimpanzee) models of HIV. Yet all of about 90 HIV vaccines that succeeded in animals failed in humans. 55 After HIV vaccine gp120 failed in clinical trials, despite positive outcomes in chimpanzees, a BMJ article commented that important differences between NHPs and humans with HIV misled researchers, taking them down unproductive experimental paths. 56 Gp120 failed to neutralize HIV grown and tested in cell culture. However, because the serum protected chimpanzees from HIV infection, two Phase 3 clinical trials were undertaken 57 —a clear example of how expectations that NHP data are more predictive than data from other (in this case, cell culture) testing methods are unproductive and harmful. Despite the repeated failures, NHPs (though not chimpanzees or other great apes) remain widely used for HIV research.

The implicit assumption that NHP (and indeed any animal) data are reliable has also led to significant and unjustifiable human suffering. For example, clinical trial volunteers for gp120 were placed at unnecessary risk of harm because of unfounded confidence in NHP experiments. Two landmark studies involving thousands of menopausal women being treated with HRT were terminated early because of increased stroke and breast cancer risk. 58 In 2003, Elan Pharmaceuticals was forced to prematurely terminate a Phase 2 clinical trial when an investigational AD vaccine was found to cause brain swelling in human subjects. No significant adverse effects were detected in GM mice or NHPs. 59

In another example of human suffering resulting from animal experimentation, six human volunteers were injected with an immunomodulatory drug, TGN 1412, in 2006. 60 Within minutes of receiving the experimental drug, all volunteers suffered a severe adverse reaction resulting from a life-threatening cytokine storm that led to catastrophic systemic organ failure. The compound was designed to dampen the immune system, but it had the opposite effect in humans. Prior to this first human trial, TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats, and NHPs with no ill effects. NHPs also underwent repeat-dose toxicity studies and were given 500 times the human dose for at least four consecutive weeks. 61 None of the NHPs manifested the ill effects that humans showed almost immediately after receiving minute amounts of the test drug. Cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys were specifically chosen because their CD28 receptors demonstrated similar affinity to TGN 1412 as human CD28 receptors. Based on such data as these, it was confidently concluded that results obtained from these NHPs would most reliably predict drug responses in humans—a conclusion that proved devastatingly wrong.

As exemplified by the study of HIV/AIDS, TGN 1412, and other experiences, 62 experiments with NHPs are not necessarily any more predictive of human responses than experiments with other animals. The repeated failures in translation from studies with NHPs belie arguments favoring use of any nonhuman species to study human physiology and diseases and to test potential treatments. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable? The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable—and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain.

The Collective Harms That Result from Misleading Animal Experiments

As medical research has explored the complexities and subtle nuances of biological systems, problems have arisen because the differences among species along these subtler biological dimensions far outweigh the similarities , as a growing body of evidence attests. These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail. 63

“Appreciation of differences” and “caution” about extrapolating results from animals to humans are now almost universally recommended. But, in practice, how does one take into account differences in drug metabolism, genetics, expression of diseases, anatomy, influences of laboratory environments, and species- and strain-specific physiologic mechanisms—and, in view of these differences, discern what is applicable to humans and what is not? If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans (even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooring), the usefulness of the experiments must be questioned.

It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information. 64 This thesis neglects how misleading information can be worse than no information from animal tests. The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods.

Humans are harmed because of misleading animal testing results. Imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically faulty or even harmful substances, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risk and wasting scarce research resources. 65 Animal toxicity studies are poor predictors of toxic effects of drugs in humans. 66 As seen in some of the preceding examples (in particular, stroke, HRT, and TGN1412), humans have been significantly harmed because investigators were misled by the safety and efficacy profile of a new drug based on animal experiments. 67 Clinical trial volunteers are thus provided with raised hopes and a false sense of security because of a misguided confidence in efficacy and safety testing using animals.

An equal if indirect source of human suffering is the opportunity cost of abandoning promising drugs because of misleading animal tests. 68 As candidate drugs generally proceed down the development pipeline and to human testing based largely on successful results in animals 69 (i.e., positive efficacy and negative adverse effects), drugs are sometimes not further developed due to unsuccessful results in animals (i.e., negative efficacy and/or positive adverse effects). Because much pharmaceutical company preclinical data are proprietary and thus publicly unavailable, it is difficult to know the number of missed opportunities due to misleading animal experiments. However, of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated, only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials. 70 Potential therapeutics may be abandoned because of results in animal tests that do not apply to humans. 71 Treatments that fail to work or show some adverse effect in animals because of species-specific influences may be abandoned in preclinical testing even if they may have proved effective and safe in humans if allowed to continue through the drug development pipeline.

An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes cases involving two drugs in which animal test results from species-specific influences could have derailed their development. In particular, it describes how tamoxifen, one of the most effective drugs for certain types of breast cancer, “would most certainly have been withdrawn from the pipeline” if its propensity to cause liver tumor in rats had been discovered in preclinical testing rather than after the drug had been on the market for years. 72 Gleevec provides another example of effective drugs that could have been abandoned based on misleading animal tests: this drug, which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), showed serious adverse effects in at least five species tested, including severe liver damage in dogs. However, liver toxicity was not detected in human cell assays, and clinical trials proceeded, which confirmed the absence of significant liver toxicity in humans. 73 Fortunately for CML patients, Gleevec is a success story of predictive human-based testing. Many useful drugs that have safely been used by humans for decades, such as aspirin and penicillin, may not have been available today if the current animal testing regulatory requirements were in practice during their development. 74

A further example of near-missed opportunities is provided by experiments on animals that delayed the acceptance of cyclosporine, a drug widely and successfully used to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection. 75 Its immunosuppressive effects differed so markedly among species that researchers judged that the animal results limited any direct inferences that could be made to humans. Providing further examples, PharmaInformatic released a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole (Abilify) and esomeprazole (Nexium), showed low oral bioavailability in animals. They would likely not be available on the market today if animal tests were solely relied on. Understanding the implications of its findings for drug development in general, PharmaInformatic asked, “Which other blockbuster drugs would be on the market today, if animal trials would have not been used to preselect compounds and drug-candidates for further development?” 76 These near-missed opportunities and the overall 96 percent failure rate in clinical drug testing strongly suggest the unsoundness of animal testing as a precondition of human clinical trials and provide powerful evidence for the need for a new, human-based paradigm in medical research and drug development.

In addition to potentially causing abandonment of useful treatments, use of an invalid animal disease model can lead researchers and the industry in the wrong research direction, wasting time and significant investment. 77 Repeatedly, researchers have been lured down the wrong line of investigation because of information gleaned from animal experiments that later proved to be inaccurate, irrelevant, or discordant with human biology. Some claim that we do not know which benefits animal experiments, particularly in basic research, may provide down the road. Yet human lives remain in the balance, waiting for effective therapies. Funding must be strategically invested in the research areas that offer the most promise.

The opportunity costs of continuing to fund unreliable animal tests may impede development of more accurate testing methods. Human organs grown in the lab, human organs on a chip, cognitive computing technologies, 3D printing of human living tissues, and the Human Toxome Project are examples of new human-based technologies that are garnering widespread enthusiasm. The benefit of using these testing methods in the preclinical setting over animal experiments is that they are based on human biology. Thus their use eliminates much of the guesswork required when attempting to extrapolate physiological data from other species to humans. Additionally, these tests offer whole-systems biology, in contrast to traditional in vitro techniques. Although they are gaining momentum, these human-based tests are still in their relative infancy, and funding must be prioritized for their further development. The recent advancements made in the development of more predictive, human-based systems and biological approaches in chemical toxicological testing are an example of how newer and improved tests have been developed because of a shift in prioritization. 78 Apart from toxicology, though, financial investment in the development of human-based technologies generally falls far short of investment in animal experimentation. 79

The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering. 80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm.

The data showing the unreliability of animal experimentation and the resultant harms to humans (and nonhumans) undermine long-standing claims that animal experimentation is necessary to enhance human health and therefore ethically justified. Rather, they demonstrate that animal experimentation poses significant costs and harms to human beings. It is possible—as I have argued elsewhere—that animal research is more costly and harmful, on the whole, than it is beneficial to human health. 81 When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what may be the wrong place. In my view, it would be better to direct resources away from animal experimentation and into developing more accurate, human-based technologies.

Aysha Akhtar , M.D., M.P.H., is a neurologist and preventive medicine specialist and Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom.

1. Taylor K, Gordon N, Langley G, Higgins W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005 . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :327–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

2. Systematic reviews that have been conducted generally reveal the unreliability and poor predictability of animal tests. See Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 2007;334:197. See also Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014;348:g3387. See Godlee F. How predictive and productive is animal research? BMJ 2014;348:g3719. See Benatar M. Lost in translation: Treatment trials in the SOD 1 mouse and in human ALS. Neurobiology Disease 2007; 26 :1–13 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Akhtar AZ, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal studies in spinal cord injury: A systematic review of methylprednisolone . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 :43–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

3. Mathews RAJ. Medical progress depends on animal models—doesn’t it? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2008; 101 :95–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

4. See Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2009; 4 :2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Wall RJ, Shani M. Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 2008; 69 :2–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

5. See note 3, Mathews 2008. See also Hartung T, Zurlo J. Food for thought… alternative approaches for medical countermeasures to biological and chemical terrorism and warfare . ALTEX 2012; 29 :251–60 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Leist M, Hartung T. Inflammatory findings on species extrapolations: Humans are definitely no 70-kg mice . Archives in Toxicology 2013; 87 :563–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Mak IWY, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: Animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment . American Journal in Translational Research 2014; 6 :114–18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Pippin J. Animal research in medical sciences: Seeking a convergence of science, medicine, and animal law . South Texas Law Review 2013; 54 :469–511. [ Google Scholar ]

6. For an overview of the harms-versus-benefits argument, see LaFollette H. Animal experimentation in biomedical research In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:812–18. [ Google Scholar ]

7. See Jucker M. The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases . Nature Medicine 2010; 16 :1210–14 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Institute of Medicine. Improving the Utility and Translation of Animal Models for Nervous System Disorders: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. And see Degryse AL, Lawson WE. Progress towards improving animal models for IPF . American Journal of Medical Science 2011; 341 :444–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

8. See Morgan KN, Tromborg CT. Sources of stress in captivity . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007; 102 :262–302 [ Google Scholar ] . See Hart PC, Bergner CL, Dufour BD, Smolinsky AN, Egan RJ, LaPorte L, et al. Analysis of abnormal repetitive behaviors in experimental animal models In Warrick JE, Kauleff AV, eds. Translational Neuroscience and Its Advancement of Animal Research Ethics . New York: Nova Science; 2009:71–82 [ Google Scholar ] . See Lutz C, Well A, Novak M. Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: A survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience . American Journal of Primatology 2003; 60 :1–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Balcombe JP, Barnard ND, Sandusky C. Laboratory routines cause animal stress . Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 2004; 43 :42–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

9. Suckow MA, Weisbroth SH, Franklin CL. The Laboratory Rat . 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006, at 323.

10. Flow BL, Jaques JT. Effect of room arrangement and blood sample collection sequence on serum thyroid hormone and cortisol concentrations in cynomolgus macaques ( Macaca fascicularis ). Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 1997;36:65–8.

11. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

12. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

13. Baldwin A, Bekoff M. Too stressed to work. New Scientist 2007;194:24.

14. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

15. Akhtar A, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal models in spinal cord injury: A review . Reviews in the Neurosciences 2008; 19 :47–60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

16. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

17. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

18. See Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias . Stroke 2004; 35 :1203–8 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also O’ Neil BJ, Kline JA, Burkhart K, Younger J. Research fundamentals: V. The use of laboratory animal models in research. Academic Emergency Medicine 1999;6:75–82.

19. Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D, Dudek BC. Genetics of mouse behavior: Interactions with laboratory environment . Science 1999; 284 :1670–2, at 1670. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

20. See Curry SH. Why have so many drugs with stellar results in laboratory stroke models failed in clinical trials? A theory based on allometric relationships. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2003;993:69–74. See also Dirnagl U. Bench to bedside: The quest for quality in experimental stroke research . Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 2006; 26 :1465–78 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

21. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Poritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Medicine 2010; 7 :e1000245. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

22. See note 20, Dirnagl 2006. See also Sena E, van der Worp B, Howells D, Macleod M. How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends in Neurosciences 2007; 30 :433–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

23. See Gawrylewski A. The trouble with animal models: Why did human trials fail? The Scientist 2007;21:44. See also Fisher M, Feuerstein G, Howells DW, Hurn PD, Kent TA, Savitz SI, et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations . Stroke 2009; 40 :2244–50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

24. See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. There is some dispute as to how vigorously investigators adhered to the suggested criteria. Nevertheless, NXY-059 animal studies were considered an example of preclinical studies that most faithfully adhered to the STAIR criteria. For further discussion see also Wang MM, Guohua X, Keep RF. Should the STAIR criteria be modified for preconditioning studies? Translational Stroke Research 2013; 4 :3–14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

25. See note 24, Wang et al. 2013.

26. O’Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke . Annals of Neurology 2006; 59 :467–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

27. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

28. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

29. See Perrin S. Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work . Nature 2014; 507 :423–5 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also, generally, Wilkins HM, Bouchard RJ, Lorenzon NM, Linseman DA. Poor correlation between drug efficacies in the mutant SOD1 mouse mode versus clinical trials of ALS necessitates the development of novel animal models for sporadic motor neuron disease. In: Costa A, Villalba E, eds. Horizons in Neuroscience Research. Vol. 5. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science; 2011:1–39.

30. Traynor BJ, Bruijn L, Conwit R, Beal F, O’Neill G, Fagan SC, et al. Neuroprotective agents for clinical trials in ALS: A systematic assessment . Neurology 2006; 67 :20–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

31. Sinha G. Another blow for ALS . Nature Biotechnology 2013; 31 :185 [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 30, Traynor et al. 2006.

32. See Morales DM, Marklund N, Lebold D, Thompson HJ, Pitkanen A, Maxwell WL, et al. Experimental models of traumatic brain injury: Do we really need a better mousetrap? Neuroscience 2005; 136 :971–89 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Xiong YE, Mahmood A, Chopp M. Animal models of traumatic brain injury . Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2013; 14 :128–42 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see commentary by Farber: Farber N. Drug development in brain injury. International Brain Injury Association ; available at http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/drug-development-in-traumatic-brain-injury/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

33. Maas AI, Roozenbeek B, Manley GT. Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury: Past experience and current developments . Neurotherapeutics 2010; 7 :115–26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

34. Schneider LS, Mangialasche F, Andreasen N, Feldman H, Giacobini E, Jones R, et al. Clinical trials and late-stage drug development in Alzheimer’s disease: An appraisal from 1984 to 2014 . Journal of Internal Medicine 2014; 275 :251–83 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

35. Seok J, Warren HS, Cuenca AG, Mindrinos MN, Baker HV, Xu W, et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2013; 110 :3507–12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

36. Palfreyman MG, Charles V, Blander J. The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery . Drug Discovery World 2002. Fall:33–40 [ Google Scholar ] .

37. See note 2, Perel et al. 2007.

38. Harding A. More compounds failing phase I. The Scientist 2004 Sept 13; available at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23003/title/More-compounds-failing-Phase-I/ (last accessed 2 June 2014).

39. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

40. See note 5, Hartung, Zurlo 2012.

41. Wiebers DO, Adams HP, Whisnant JP. Animal models of stroke: Are they relevant to human disease? Stroke 1990; 21 :1–3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

42. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

43. See note 2, Akhtar et al. 2009.

44. Lonjon N, Prieto M, Haton H, Brøchner CB, Bauchet L, Costalat V, et al. Minimum information about animal experiments: Supplier is also important . Journal of Neuroscience Research 2009; 87 :403–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

45. Mogil JS, Wilson SG, Bon K, Lee SE, Chung K, Raber P, et al. Heritability of nociception I: Responses of 11 inbred mouse strains on 12 measures of nociception . Pain 1999; 80 :67–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

46. Tator H, Hashimoto R, Raich A, Norvell D, Fehling MG, Harrop JS, et al. Translational potential of preclinical trials of neuroprotection through pharmacotherapy for spinal cord injury . Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2012; 17 :157–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

47. See note 35, Seok et al. 2013, at 3507.

48. Odom DT, Dowell RD, Jacobsen ES, Gordon W, Danford TW, MacIsaac KD, et al. Tissue-specific transcriptional regulation has diverged significantly between human and mouse . Nature Genetics 2007; 39 :730–2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

49. Horrobin DF. Modern biomedical research: An internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003; 2 :151–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

50. Vassilopoulous S, Esk C, Hoshino S, Funke BH, Chen CY, Plocik AM, et al. A role for the CHC22 clathrin heavy-chain isoform in human glucose metabolism . Science 2009; 324 :1192–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

51. See Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG. Psoriasis: Evolution of pathogenic concepts and new therapies through phases of translational research . British Journal of Dermatology 2007; 157 :1103–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also The mouse model: Less than perfect, still invaluable. Johns Hopkins Medicine ; available at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/model_organisms/201010_mouse_model.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014). See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. See note 2, Benatar 2007. See note 29, Perrin 2014 and Wilkins et al. 2011. See Cavanaugh S, Pippin J, Barnard N. Animal models of Alzheimer disease: Historical pitfalls and a path forward. ALTEX online first; 2014 Apr 10. And see Woodroofe A, Coleman RA. ServiceNote: Human tissue research for drug discovery . Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News 2007; 27 :18 [ Google Scholar ] .

52. Lane E, Dunnett S. Animal models of Parkinson’s disease and L-dopa induced dyskinesia: How close are we to the clinic? Psychopharmacology 2008; 199 :303–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

53. See note 52, Lane, Dunnett 2008.

54. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

55. Bailey J. An assessment of the role of chimpanzees in AIDS vaccine research . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :381–428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

56. Tonks A. The quest for the AIDs vaccine . BMJ 2007; 334 :1346–8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

57. Johnston MI, Fauci AS. An HIV vaccine—evolving concepts . New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 356 :2073–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

58. See Rossouw JE, Andersen GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberf C, Stefanick ML, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy menopausal women: Principle results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2002; 288 :321–33 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Andersen GL, Limacher A, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black H, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: The Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2004; 291 :1701–12 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

59. Lemere CA. Developing novel immunogens for a safe and effective Alzheimer’s disease vaccine . Progress in Brain Research 2009; 175 :83. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

60. Allen A. Of mice and men: The problems with animal testing. Slate 2006 June 1; available at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014).

61. Attarwala H. TGN1412: From discovery to disaster . Journal of Young Pharmacists 2010; 2 :332–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

62. See Hogan RJ. Are nonhuman primates good models for SARS? PLoS Medicine 2006; 3 :1656–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Bailey J. Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: A critical review . Biogenic Amines 2005; 19 :235–55. [ Google Scholar ]

63. See note 4, Wall, Shani 2008.

64. Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Critical reviews may be helpful—not systematic ones . BMJ 2005; 330 :977–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

65. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation . BMJ 2002; 324 :474–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

66. See note 60,Allen 2006. See also Heywood R. Target organ toxicity . Toxicology Letters 1981; 8 :349–58 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Fletcher AP. Drug safety tests and subsequent clinical experience . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1978; 71 :693–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

67. See note 60, Allen 2006. See note 5, Pippin 2013. See also Greek R, Greek J. Animal research and human disease . JAMA 2000; 283 :743–4 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

68. See note 60, Allen 2006. See also note 5, Leist, Hartung 2013.

69. Food and Drug Administration. Development & approval process (drugs); available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014). See also http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

70. Drug discovery pipeline. IRSF; available at http://www.rettsyndrome.org/research-programs/programmatic-overview/drug-discovery-pipeline (last accessed 24 Sept 2014).

71. See note 60, Allen 2006.

72. Follow the yellow brick road. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2:167, at 167.

73. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

74. For data on aspirin, see Hartung T. Per aspirin as astra … Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 (Suppl 2 ):45–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 5, Pippin 2013. For data on penicillin, see Koppanyi T, Avery MA. Species differences and the clinical trial of new drugs: A review . Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1966; 7 :250–70 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Schneierson SS, Perlman E. Toxicity of penicillin for the Syrian hamster . Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1956; 91 :229–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

75. See note 67, Greek, Greek 2000.

76. Oral bioavailability of blockbuster drugs in humans and animals. PharmaInformatic . available at http://www.pharmainformatic.com/html/blockbuster_drugs.html (last accessed 19 Sept 2014).

77. Sams-Dodd F. Strategies to optimize the validity of disease models in the drug discovery process . Drug Discovery Today 2006; 11 :355–63 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

78. Zurlo J. No animals harmed: Toward a paradigm shift in toxicity testing . Hastings Center Report 2012;42. Suppl:s23–6 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

79. There is no direct analysis of the amount of money spent on animal testing versus alternatives across all categories; however, in 2008 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that funding of research involving animals (under basic research) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) remained steady at about 42 percent since 1990. See Monastersky R. Protesters fail to slow animal research. Chronicle of Higher Education 2008:54. In 2012, NIH director Francis Collins noted that the NIH’s support for basic research has held steady at 54 percent of the agency’s budget for decades. The remainder of the NIH’s budget is heavily funded toward clinical research, suggesting that preclinical human-based testing methods are much less funded. See also Wadman M. NIH director grilled over translational research centre. Nature News Blog 2012 Mar 20. Available at http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/nih-director-grilled-over-translational-research-center.html (last accessed 5 Mar 2015). There is no data that suggests that the NIH’s funding of animal experimentation has decreased. A 2010 analysis estimates that at least 50 percent of the NIH’s extramural funding is directed into animal research; see Greek R, Greek J. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2010; 5 :14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

80. For a helpful discussion on animal pain, fear, and suffering, see DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Lives and Moral Status . New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996:116–23. [ Google Scholar ]

81. See Akhtar A. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare . Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:chap. 5.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS  animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments  for  and  against  animal testing, and then give  your own conclusions  on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. 

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet. 

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Line Graph: Governments Expenditure on Research

Jul 23, 24 01:27 PM

House History Essay

Jul 16, 24 04:06 PM

Paraphrasing Activity for IELTS Reading

Jul 13, 24 07:48 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

30% discount - just $25.86 for all 4 writing ebooks.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: Why animal testing should be banned

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Sociology essays
• Reading time: 4 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 27 July 2024*
• Last Modified: 27 July 2024
• File format: Text
• Words: 1,008 (approx)
• Number of pages: 5 (approx)
• Tags: Animal testing essays

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 1,008 words. Download the full version above.

New medications, treatments and therapies are of great importance to most people in the world today. Nevertheless, none of those therapies can be implemented unless they are properly and clinically tested. This is done by testing the various products with animals. Small animals such as dogs, pigs, rats, chimpanzees and monkeys are used as subjects in clinical trials of these drugs and treatments. Once the outcome and benefits are seen and if the subject manages to survive and show the promised benefits of the product, the product is then passed off and sold. Animals have been used repeatedly throughout the history of biomedical research . Early Greek physician-scientists performed experiments on living animals. Some people believe that animal testing should not be banned, while others believe that animal testing should be allowed. Even though animal testing can help researcher to find drugs and treatments, there are a number of reasons why animal testing should be banned. In the following paragraphs I will talk about why animal testing should be banned.

One advantage of animal testing is that it can improve human health. It is true that animal testing can help researcher to find drugs and treatments. Humans can find out which treatments can successfully improve their health. However, animal testing is inhumane. It is very often reported that animals have been injured or killed by animal testing. For example, animals might be exposed to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death. At the end, the only way to cut their pain is to put them down. Michael O. Leavitt, former secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, states, “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies.” (Leavitt, 2018). This shows that animal testing always fail and it will hurt animals. Therefore, animal testing should be banned.

Opponents of animal testing also claim that animal testing can help human to make sure safety of drugs. However, animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia. Humans are not mice, cats, dogs or any of the other animals that are used to mimic us in the lab. Each kind of animal has a different genetic background that make them unique and ill-suited to serve as predictive models for people. Although researchers have discovered an animal model which appears to mirror what occurs in humans, the response result in animals can occur via different mechanisms because of the intrinsic differences between species. Dr Elias Zerhouni, former director of the National Institutes of Health, states, “We have moved away from studying human disease in humans. We all drank the Kool-Aid on that one, me included. … The problem is that [testing on animal] hasn’t worked, and it’s time we stopped dancing around the problem. … We need to refocus and adapt new methodologies for use in humans to understand disease biology in humans.” (Zerhouni, 2018). Thus, humans are different with nonhuman animals, which is another strong reason that why animal testing should be banned.

On the other hand, one of the main reasons why animal testing should be banned is that drugs that pass animal testing are not necessarily safe. The sleeping pill thalidomide in 1950s, which caused ten thousand babies to born with severe deformities, was tested on animals earlier before its commercial release. Later tests on pregnant chicks, rats, pigs, dogs, and monkeys did not result in birth defects unless the drug was administered at extremely high doses. Animal testing on the arthritis drug showed that it had a protective effect on the hearts of animals, yet the drug went on to cause more than twenty seven thousand heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being turned down from the market. Therefore, drugs that pass animal testing does not mean it is necessarily safe is another strong reason against animal testing.

Another argument against animal testing is that animal testing is more expensive than alternative ways and is a waste of research dollars. For example, researchers need to spend a lot of money to bring up and feed those animals. Nowadays, many biotechnology companies are using synthetic organs which can predict the animals’ metabolic reactions to drug in a process that is quicker, cheaper, and more accurately than animal testing; in one trial it provided benefits of specificity which previously could have required testing on one thousand pigs and monkeys. Time and money are more effective than animal testing. Dr Christopher Austin, former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Chemical Genomics Centre, status, “Traditional animal testing is expensive, time-consuming, uses a lot of animals and from a scientific perspective the results do not necessarily translate to humans.” (Austin, 2018). Therefore, expensive and time-consuming is one of the reasons of why animal testing should be banned.

One last argument against animal testing is that animal testing is cruel and inhumane. Researchers usually hurt animals during the experiment. For example, The Draize eye test, which used by cosmetics companies to check irritation caused by shampoos. Mice being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open by clips, sometimes for multiple days. Sometimes, mice may become blinded after these inhumanly experiments. Animals also have rights to alive and well. Human should not destroy others’ rights for their own benefits. Therefore, animal testing is cruel and inhumane is one strong reasons of why animal testing should be banned.

In conclusion, animal testing is a controversial issue that has divided public opinion over the past century. It is clear that although animal testing has benefits for humans, I believe that it is extremely inhumane. It is often reported that drugs are not safe for human even passed animal testing. And it is also wasting money and time-consuming. It is hoped that animal testing will be banned as soon as possible.

2018-11-5-1541393023.php

...(download the rest of the essay above)

Discover more:

• Animal testing essays

Recommended for you

• Justifying Animal Use in Scientific Research
• Animal testing is regulated to a humane level
• Animals used in scientific research

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, Why animal testing should be banned . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/sociology-essays/why-animal-testing-should-be-banned/> [Accessed 03-08-24].

These Sociology essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays