Animal Experimentation: Effective or Eerie?

Today's society thrives on controversy and ethical dilemmas. The ongoing debate about using animals for testing and experiments falls into that category perfectly. Is it a practical solution to test drugs and chemicals on animals before humans? Or is it harmful and unethical? Each side believes it has the strongest argument, but I'll give you the facts for your own interpretation.

The pro-animal testing side of the argument argues that because animals are so similar to humans in structure and function, and their lifespan is short as is, it is okay to use them for testing. Others argue that as long as the animals are respected and well-handled, there is no issue whatsoever and animal testing should continue. Additionally, others argue that ignorance on the issue is the reason that most people are against animal testing. The statistics show that the percentage of animals used has decreased largely in recent years, and puts the number of animals used for testing side by side with statistics on animals being used for other things, like hunting and food.

The other side of this argument has become much stronger during recent years. Anti-testing organizations have geared up to fight against animal-based research. First, those against animal testing believe that it is essentially murder, whether useful data is coming from the experiment or not. Others think that there is a logical alternative to animal testing that could save the lives of the animals currently being used. Finally, organizations and groups against animal-based research argue that not only does it harm animals, but in the long run it can also harm humans in clinical trials, or harm us financially as tax dollars are used to fund the testing.

So, what are your thoughts? We've definitely seen this debate surface more in recent years, but has change come along with it? If these arguments weren't particular enough for you, check out this link that presents both sides in depth.

#research