Some pros to animal testing?

Question

So, here goes another persuasive paper. And this time, the topic is "Animal testing." It's a two partner paper, so my friend has cons, while I have pros. Therefore, I don't really want anyone's opinion about the cons of animal testing...I only want pros! Okay, so what I have is: it's cheaper, it helps us to treat many diseases, animals like monkeys have similar DNA to that of humans, and testing on humans is even more inhumane. Is there anything else, something stronger, perhaps?

Answer 1

1. Fewer experiments with human beings

2. Control over the geneitc component in the animals used.
(e.g. use identical twins or similar). Can use animals
with greater than normal propensity for a certain disease
condition. (Breeding people with greater susceptibility to
certain diseases would be difficult for society to accept).

3. Less costly than using human beings

4. Animals can be tailored to the experimental need. For
example, use simple, less expensive species for
preliminary work, and then move up to more similar species as the experiments get closer to showing human
utility.

5. Greater understanding of the genetic component to certain disease conditions. Or the environmental componet for that matter.

6. Legal problems not as severe.

7.

Answer 2

Animal testing has really received a bad wrap. There are SO many regulations for animal welfare, that in all reality, the rats, mice, dogs, etc. that are commonly used for testing often have a longer, safer life than any of those out in the wild, freezing, starving, or worse, being poisoned and slowly dying. And any person that has ever used advil, tylenol, cold medicine, etc. can't be against animal testing since FDA regulates that all medicine has to be checked first through animals. Most animals systems are set up the same as humans...for example, dogs are used mainly in heart & lung studies, rats & mice for cancer studies since most die from tumors, rabbits for fetal and eye, and pigs for dermal. The intitial stages of testing new chemicals/medicines are done as much as possible through computers, models, and invertebrates, but as regulations stand, have to go through to make sure of their levels and titers in the blood if nothing else.

I don't know how much specifics you want, but hopefully this gives you a start in your defense.

Answer 3

In-vitro testing (literally, "in-glass") isn't always conclusive. You need in-vivo ("in-life") testing.

Like, say, a substance kills a virus in a test tube. How do you know it'll work in the body? You have to have bodily organs and tissues and fluids and stuff to see how the substance works in a system. It's just not feasible to make an in-vitro test that mimics an animal's body (and even harder for a human body.)

Not that I like animal testing...but I admit, there are persuasive arguments for your side. If I had to pick a side, this one would be logically easier to argue.

Oh, and as far as the snake anti-venin, it wasn't tested on horses...horses MAKE the anti-venin. They're injected with venom and their bodies make anti-venin, which is extracted for use in humans. I don't think it kills them--their bodies are used for their immune systems, which make the substances for the anti-venin. It's filtered out of their blood or something. I'm not sure. But they do make the antibodies for the anti-venin.

Answer 4

It keeps us safe!

Shampoo is tested first on rabbits, to see if it will ruin their eyes. Sure, it's not good for the rabbits... but would you want your baby to be using untested shampoo?

Research on diabetes and insulin was first performed on dogs. To be effective, the dogs had to be slaughtered, and analyzed. This kind of testing can't be performed on people! To the hundreds of thousands of people who inject insulin every day, the research done on dogs is a lifesaver for them.

Snake anti-venin shots were developed using horses. Anyone who's been bitten by a snake and needed the shot is probably very glad that there were horses!

So it all comes down to: which is more precious, human life, or animal life? I'm going to ponder this while eating my bacon cheeseburger, thanks.

Answer 5

One big "pro" is that it's not done on humans. It will help us discover cures for diseases. I know it's cruel to the animal, but we need it. As long as you aren't dropping a cat from a 6 story building to see if it lands on it's feet, that's CRUEL! If it's the difference of finding a cure for cancer or H.I.V then sorry about the little cute fur ball.

Answer 6

I recently shampooed my pet rabbit with Body Shop shampoo. Its eyes bulged out and turned red. If you tested your stuff on animals like everyone else, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.
-- Extract from a customer complaint letter

Answer 7

Dont you think it would be much more accurate to test on TRULY worthless living things such as gang members,rapist,and murderers.I would feel worse if you tested on a hiv infested rat than those people.

Answer 8

PROS Not done on humans. Not done on humans, Not done on Humans ....Not done on you mother, father brother sister child daughter son grandchild.
not done on humans. not done on humans. not done on humns,