What are the pros and cons for animal testing??

Question

Help me out quickly!!!

Answer 1

Before you proceed to pros and cons of animal testing you must know -

Does animal testing work?

Yes-
1. Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB.
2. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough.
3. Scientists claim there are no differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be factored into tests.
4. Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques.

No-
1. Animal experiments can be misleading. An animal's response to a drug can be different to a human's.
2. Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models.
3. The stress that animals endure in labs can affect experiments, making the results meaningless.
4. Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery.

Then u can focus on -

Is animal testing morally right?

Yes-
1. Human life has greater intrinsic value than animal life. 2.Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment.
3. Millions of animals are killed for food every year - if anything, medical research is a more worthy death.
4. Few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer.

No-
1. Animals have as much right to life as human beings.
2. Strict controls have not prevented researchers from abusing animals - although such instances are rare.
3. Deaths through research are absolutely unnecessary and are morally no different from Murder.
4. When locked up they suffer tremendous stress. Can we know they don't feel pain?

I am sending u more details but I dont know why it is not processing...

Contact me at ([e-mail]) for more details

Answer 2

Cons Of Animal Testing

Answer 3

There are many pros to animal testing. Sometimes it will put an animal through lots of pain, but it can save human lives. scientists will inject a lab animal with a virus like AIDS or cancer, then try to cure them and if it works, they will have developed a new cure for whatever it was that the animal was injected with. Animal testing can not only save the live of humans, but other animals too. If we did not have medical animal many lives would be lost. Animal testing plays a big role in trying to find cures for certain diseases. Animal Testing plays a big role in todays economy and if we did not have it many people would lose their jobs, and lives.
Cons

There are also many cons to animal testing. Some are very sad, but it happens anyway. Some times its like waisting the life of an animal. If the animal won't take up the virus they will kill it just to get rid of it. 2.7 million lab animals die each year in Britain alone, and hundreds of them are used just for their tissue. The people doing this are waisting animal lives, and even if the animal does take up the virus if the people's cure does not work the animal will still die.
My Position

I am for and against animal testing depending on what it is for. If animal testing is for medical research I am a for it, but if it is for something like testing make-up which has no purpose, Iam against it.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What are the pros and cons for animal testing??
Help me out quickly!!!

Answer 5

When something is essential to human health, measuring "pros and cons" in not very useful. Essential means it must be done. Animal testing falls into that category. The arguments against animal testing are completely emotional, with little basis in fact. To respond to the "no" arguments from the above post ....

[Animal experiments can be misleading. An animal's response to a drug can be different to a human's]

A: Yes, which is why we must test on animals as physiologically close to humans as possible. The effect of a drug on a frog doesn't tell us much about the probably effect on humans. But the effect on a rat is much more predictive, a pig even more so, and the effect on a primate is essentially conclusive.

[Successful alternatives include test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models.]

A: If test tube studies provided the essential information, scientists wouldn't both with the great expense and the many difficulties inherent in animal testing. Scientists are not into wasting valuable research grants by doing things the most expensive way when a less expensive alternative would do as well. A cell culture doesn't have a heart, brain, kidneys, skin, or other organs. Therefore there is no way that studies based on cell cultures can reveal side effects like cardiac arrest, brain tumors, kidney failure or skin rashes. Only animal testing can reveal such dangerous and often lethal complications. Computer models reflect what is already known. they do not reveal as yet unknown effects on living organisms. Even the simplest organism is far more complex than any computer. Would you want someone working on your car that had learned auto mechanics on a computer, but had never held a wrench?

[The stress that animals endure in labs can affect experiments, making the results meaningless.]

A: Subject stress can have an influence on some kinds of experiments, but not most kinds. As for the areas where stress may be a factor, which is the better approach - to take the stress factor into consideration in interpreting the results, or to forego any testing and results, allowing the first humans who take the drug to serve as guineapigs?

[Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery.]

A: Cleaning products may not benefit mankind in as immediately crucial a way as medicines, though they do prevent a great deal of disease and much of the need for medicines. Regardless of how crucial they are, every home has them. Would you prefer to know the dangers of such products before or after your children are harmed by them? Again, it's a question of who will be the guineapigs - real guineapigs, or your family?

[Animals have as much right to life as human beings.]

A: Nonsense! Animals have no rights at all. Rights are of two kinds, inalienable and legislated. Animals have neither. Humans do have a serious responsibility to use natural resources like water, air, forests and animals responsibly. But that isn't because water or air or trees or animals have rights.

Strict controls have not prevented researchers from abusing animals - although such instances are rare.

A: Researchers abusing animals would be like a professional musician abusing his instruments. Research animals are extremely expensive, and are the key to success in many areas of research. If you spend $200.00 apiece for a dozen mice of a particular genetic strain, you handle them very carefully, and make sure they are well cared for.

[Deaths through research are absolutely unnecessary and are morally no different from Murder.]

A: Ludicrous! Next time you eat a tuna sandwich, think about the poor fish that was "murdered". Even if you are a vegetarian you are killing in order to nourish yourself. Plants and animals are on the earth as part of an integrated system, of which we are part. They feed on one another (and occasionally on us), and we feed on them. That's the way nature works. And the use of animals to provide cures for human conditions and to save human lives is a far more noble cause then filling our stomachs, though both are necessary.

[When locked up they suffer tremendous stress. Can we know they don't feel pain?]

A: We try not to cause them any more pain than is necessary. But some pain is unavoidable. Better a rat or a pig or a dog should develop a painful brain tumor than one of my children.