Individual Uses Certain Cosmetic

When an individual uses certain cosmetics, takes antibiotics, or even gets vaccines, they are supporting the practice of animal testing either knowingly or unknowingly. Animals are tested, mostly by companies, with the intent of verifying that products and other materials are safe for human use. Although this practice can be beneficial for humans, testing on animals is abusive, the practice is unreliable, and animal testing costs an extravagant amount of tax money; therefore, this practice should be deemed illegal, and alternative practices should be used.
Animal testing is an abusive practice that studies, tortures, and causes the death od over 100 million animals each year (Animal Testing 101). Although many individuals believe that animals do not feel pain, like humans, they do.

A large reason why animal testing is viewed as so abusive is due to the degree in which animals are treated. For example, according to Sarah Rose A. Miller, One commonly used procedure is the Draize Test, which is used to test household products for harmful chemicals. In the Draize Eye Irritancy Test, solutions are applied immediately to the subjects' eyes-usually a group of albino rabbits. This often causes intense pain and destroys the rabbits' eyes, leaving them raw and bleeding. After the test period (around seven hours), the rabbits are killed so they can be examined for internal damage. As one can see, animals encounter extreme abuse in this setting; researchers view the animals as objects rather than living beings who feel pain.

The animals do not have any say in how they want to live their lives, and they are tortured to death. Not only is animal testing painful for animals, but it also can easily ruin an animal's quality of life. For example, according to Bogdan Marinescu and Cristin Coman, many researchers and animal testers snip animals ears, remove body parts to test them, severely burn them, and use many other methods of testing (Marinescu, B., & Coman, C.). As one can see, animals go through a great deal of pain and suffering when in this captivity, and this contributes to their poor quality of life.

In addition, the majority of animals that are tested on are confined to a very small space, which also makes a large contribution to the animal's poor quality of life (Miller). Lastly, animals are tested on with chemicals, and this practice can significantly harm them. According to Sarah Miller, This procedure is used to measure the toxicity of a substance-the amount of the substance it takes to kill half a group (generally 200) of test animals. The test usually goes on for days, and the animals suffer extreme pain and distress. As one can see, humans are insensitively exposing animals to chemicals and seeing if they survive it or not in order to test that it is safe. The animals are tortured, and they do not have any control over what is happening to them. Furthermore, animal testing should be illegal due to the agony that animals are being forced to experience.

Animal testing should be outlawed due to the unreliability of making sure that materials are safe for humans to use. Many studies and instances have proven that animal testing is not reliable when it comes to confirming that materials are safe for human usage. For example, The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans (Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing). As one can see, this number can be stunning due to the likeliness of a product harming an individual. As further proof, according to Sheree Stachura, Just recently, Vioxx, a medication manufactured by Merck and approved by the FDA, was pulled from the market.

The medication caused 25% of 239 patients taking it to have heart attacks within 13 days of starting the drug. As one can see, this statistic provides evidence that animal testing is unreliable and perhaps disquieting. It is alarming for some individuals to apprehend that humans do not know what is going to happen to them if they use a material that they believe is safe, but actually is not. Lastly, animals and humans have many significant contrasts (Stachura). For example, animals and humans differ when it comes to genetics and responses to materials (Edwards). Therefore, if we have so many contrasts, then how do humans know that they are completely safe from a material that was only tested on animals? Humans are unknowingly taking a moral risk when using materials that used animal testing, and the reason for this is that testing on animals is an unreliable method. Thus, alternative practices should be put into place.

Not only does animal testing cost many animals' lives, but it also costs a lot of money. One may ask, Where does all of this money come from? According to Kayla Newcomer, the funds for animal testing, which is about 14.5 million dollars every year, comes from taxes, and the government uses the taxes to pay for testing. Therefore, there are many people in the United States who are unknowingly and/or forcefully contributing to the practice of animal testing.

In addition, specific studies cost a lot of money. For example, did you know that studying a chromosome aberration on animals costs $30,000 (Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing)? Furthermore, like mentioned before, unreliability is a large dilemma in animal testing. Therefore, humans are spending a great amount of money on animal testing, and humans do not know for sure if materials are safe to use. To bring down the cost and test for more reliability, there are alternative solutions for animal testing that researchers can use.

In response to a claim that animal testing should not be legal, Jeffery A. Running, a microbiologist and research scientist, claimed that animal testing saves human lives. In fact, he claims that if animal testing did not exist, that the adverse effect rate from materials would be much higher than it already is. Within his argument, Running claims, If vaccines weren't produced, many millions (yes, millions) of people would die as a result of infectious disease. If vaccines were produced, but were tested directly on humans, vaccines that did have harmful side effects would harm people instead of animals (Running).

Furthermore, humans cannot perform tests directly on to humans to test whether or not they are safe for usage, so animals are the only option to make sure that a material is somewhat for human use is safe. This sourced is biased due to the fact that Running, a microbiologist and research scientist, job relies on testing materials on animals to make sure they are safe for human use. Running claims that animal testing has saved many lives, and without it, many humans would be harmed (Running).

Although Running makes a strong claim that animal testing saves lives, the practice also puts human lives in danger. The unreliability of animal testing surpasses the possibility of animal testing catching flaws in materials. If a product is unsafe, then it could easily harm or even kill a human. However, there are other reliable, alternative methods to animal testing that could potentially save more humans lives than animal testing would. One of the alternatives includes in-vitro testing.

In-vitro testing is where human cells are placed on a slide, and its job is to impersonate human reactions to a substance (Alternatives to Animal Testing). It can be believed that in-vitro testing allows for more accurate results due to the fact that it acts similar to humans epidermis (Alternatives to Animal Testing). As one can see, in-vitro testing, which allows for testing to be done is a human-like, accurate way; this will essentially reduce the risk of unreliability being an issue, and, it will not harm any animals in the process.

According to staff from The Scientist, individuals who perform studies and research on animals take into consideration the animal's pain and distress, and essentially attempt to make the environment tolerable. For example, researchers will only use the number of animals necessary to get the results that they desire (Reducing Pain and Distress in Animal Research). In addition, according to Ian Murnaghan, researchers live by the three Rs: reduction, replacement, and refinement. This means that researchers are making an attempt to decrease the number of animal subjects, trying to use different techniques for testing that does not require animals, and making an attempt to make the testing easier on the animal (Murnaghan).

Although researchers are trying to reduce the amount of harm placed on an animal, this does not change the fact that animals are still being harmed by animal testing. If researchers were concerned with the state animals were in, then they would not perform animal testing at all. For example, like mentioned previously, animal are forced to suffer through studies that result in problems such as burns (Marinescu, B., & Coman, C.).

To put a stop to animal testing completely, alternative testing practices can be put into place. Like mentioned previously, in-vitro testing is certainly an alternative possibly (Alternatives to Animal Testing). In addition, computer modeling could be the future of medical research and animal testing (Alternatives to Animal Testing). Computer modeling has made it to where technology has the ability to find cures and use QSAR testing rather than using animal subjects (Alternatives to Animal Testing). As one can see, the alternatives to animal testing are feasible; humans just have to put in the time and effort in using them rather than using animal subjects.

Testing on animals has been proven to be cruel, unreliable, and costly. As one can see, there are other alternative methods to avoid animal testing. This can and eventually will be beneficial for both animals and humans. Therefore, humans should take initiative and deem animal testing as illegal. Alternative testing such as in-vitro and computer modeling could benefit humans immensely, and be the future of testing materials.

Works Cited

Alternatives to Animal Testing. PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for- experimentation/alternatives-animal-testing/. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Animal Testing 101. PETA, 2018, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for- experimentation/animal-testing-101/. Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
Badyal, Dinesh, and Chetna Desai. "Animal use in Pharmacology Education and Research: The Changing Scenario." Indian Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 46, no. 3, 2014, pp. 257-265. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1534137941?accountid=14197, doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.132153.
Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing. Humane Society International, www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_product_testing/facts/time_and_cost.html. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Edwards, Sarah. "Achieving Standards without Sacrificing My Own." Voices from the Middle, vol. 10, no. 1, 2002, pp. 31-34. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/213932428?accountid=14197.
Marinescu, Bogdan, and Cristin Coman. "The Ethics of Animals Testing." Revista Romana De Bioetica, vol. 8, no. 3, 2010. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1286687152?accountid=14197.
Miller, Sarah R. A. "Animal Research." The Humanist, vol. 61, no. 5, Sep, 2001, pp. 15-18. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/235290335?accountid=14197.
Murnaghan, Ian. "Replacement Of Animal Testing". Aboutanimaltesting.Co.Uk, 2018, https://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/replacement-of-animal-testing.html. Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
Newcomer, Kayla. "Federal Government Funds Animal Testing, Animal Experiments | Global Animal". Global Animal, 2018, https://www.globalanimal.org/2013/10/07/guilty- government-practices/. Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
Reducing Pain and Distress in Animal Research. The Scientist Magazine, www.the- scientist.com/news/reducing-pain-and-distress-in-animal-research-63445. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Running, Jeffrey A. "Animal Testing Helps Protesters Live 20 Years Longer."Milwaukee Journal, Jul 27, 1990, pp. A08. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/333434439?accountid=14197.
Stachura, Sheree,R.N., B.S.N. "Drug Safety: An Argument to Ban Animal Testing."Journal of Nursing Law, vol. 12, no. 4, 2008, pp. 147-156. ProQuest, https://nclive.org/cgi- bin/nclsm?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/206506555?accountid=14197, doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1073-7472.12.4.147.
The Truth about Animals Used for Experimentation. PETA, www.peta.org/issues/animals- used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101/. Accessed 12 December 2018.
Top Five Reasons to Stop Animal Testing. PETA, 20 Apr. 2018, www.peta.org/blog/top-five- reasons-stop-animal-testing/comment-page-1/.

Cite this page