Introduction reliable results. Difference in Reaction Over the


Scientists spend much of their time testing products that are designed for human beings on animals to be certain about the effects these products might have. When all this is done the lives of the animals concerned is put into imminent risk and nobody cares whether they make it through the experiment or not. As if that is not enough, when one animal losses life in the course of this experiments, the scientists pick another and continue with their barbaric deeds oblivious of the increasing number of lives that they endanger.

As science develops with technology people need to stand up and fight for the rights of these animals, which will be condemned to the path of death where they have no voice to determine how they will be treated. This paper seeks to bring out the negative issues associated with animal testing. Animal testing should be abolished as it is immoral, against animal rights and does not provide reliable results.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Difference in Reaction

Over the time, it has been proofed that animals react differently to various drugs among themselves which makes it very hard to argue with certainty the effects of the drug to the body. Incidentally, the bodies of animals are different from that of human beings, given that animals can take some kind of substances which when eaten by human beings make them sick (Earie, 2007).

Based on this fact, animals tend to react to drugs in a different way which significantly varies from the way human being will react to the very same drug. This has been proofed in many instances where a drug which has been taught to be safe for human use having been tested on thousands has ended up being detrimental to human beings causing some deformities or even death when tried on human beings (Hursthouse, 2000).

Certainty of Animal Testing

When animals are used to test drugs, the main idea is not to verify whether the drugs are safe to be used by human beings in treating the specific diseases that they are meant for but rather to test whether they can be taken a step further and be tested on human beings.

This means that human beings are still put on experiment using these drugs, and end up suffering various abnormalities or even loose their lives, to ascertain whether they have any effects even after killing numerous animals in the name of testing the safety of the drugs. It is a pity that during this animal tests, there is no antidotes prepared so incase there is any potential harm to human beings when this drugs eventually get to be experimented on them there is no way this injuries can be taken care of (Earie, 2007).

Morality issues

Supporters of animal testing argue that it is morally correct to use animals in testing of drugs than to use human beings which would amount to having an intention to commit murder.

On the contrary, millions of animals are subjected to painful procedures on the cruelest ways that they can without caring to provide even an antidote to the animals making the whole process uncouth (Fleming & Worden, 2004). On top of that, the idea of infecting the animals with diseases or other disorders which one is not sure of getting a cure is in itself an act of intentional killing which is not morally correct by any definition that one might want to give to morality.

In conjunction with that, it is against morals for one to cause suffering intentionally which is exactly what is done when animals are subjected to the pains that result from the conditions they are compelled to by people who just want to proof their ingenuity (Fleming & Worden, 2004).

Availability of Substitute Methods

With the development of technology there has been discovery of various scientific ways of generating, experimenting and even testing of drugs without necessarily involving the whole animal. The various ways that may be used include tissue and cell culture system, cloned human skin cells and computer or even mathematical models among others which do not cause suffering to animals and at the same time produce perfect results.

It should also be noted that this new methods can use human cells and therefore, giving reliable information about the effects of this drugs to human beings rather than using animals belonging to a different species for experiments whose results will be applied to another species (Hursthouse, 2000).

Violation of Animal Rights

In today’s world, we are all aware about existence of basic rights which should not be violated at all costs. Animal rights have also been a subject of discussion for a long time now, but a general agreement is that animals have intrinsic rights which should be respected. (Watson, 2009)

Keeping this in mind therefore, by supporting animal testing we will be violating the very basic animal rights that we should be taking care of by subjecting these animals to cruelty and prematurely ending their lives. Notably also is the fact that animals have no power to agree or disagree to what is done and are therefore forced to what would have been against their wish were it under different circumstances (Hayhurst, 2000).

Failure to deliver as concerns complicated diseases

Evidently some of the complex diseases like cancer and AIDS which have been under experiment for centuries now still do not have a vaccine leave alone a cure years later after millions of animals have cruelly been subjected to various tests which are claimed to assist in research (Watson, 2009).

The idea that there are animals present for use at the scientists’ use has made them narrow their researches to search for a cure instead of other beneficial advancements like finding how to prevent the spread of these diseases and hence save many people who continue to die day in day out.

Costly Yet Findings are not Guaranteed

The cost analysis of animal testing is also alarming considering the billions of dollars that are injected each year and the number of animals that are involved yet what comes out is not perfect. We continue to allocate money to this course every year in the name of research whose results will end up being re-tested again using human beings whom we claim we do not want to use as test gargets (Kotler & Lee, 2005).

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 to human beings.


The benefits that animal testing provide to the human race has not been proven and if the benefits exist, there are several other ways of achieving them which are more humane and does not inflict pain on animals. Coherently, it is useless to conduct a procedure which those who perform it are not sure of it and will in the end re-test it again.

As a matter of fact, the perpetrators of this barbaric act of animal testing claim that they want to save human beings from any effects of the drugs however, they end up risking people’s lives when they start testing the drugs on human beings. It is therefore, paramount that the issue of animal testing be re-addressed and be banned as it is immoral and goes against the rights of animals.


Earle, S. (2007). Theory and Research in Promoting Public Health. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Fleming, M., & Worden, D. (2004). Thinking about God and Morality. London: Heinemann.

Hayhurst, C. (2000). Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Hursthouse, R. (2000). Ethics, Humans and Other Animals: An Introduction With Readings. London: Routledge.

Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing the Most Good for Your Company. New York: Wiley.

Watson, S. (2009). Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.