Animal Testing

by bruno.g on April 28, 2016 - 11:38pm

      When developing new drugs, scientists often need to test them in order to know their efficiency and if there are potential dangers to it’s use on humans. This is where animal testing come in handy. Since some animal species have astonishingly close genomes to ours, testing new products or drugs on them gives the scientists a good idea of the possible side effects that could occur and the actual effect whether good or bad it has on it’s tester. While some laws exist to protect these animals against cruel treatments and unnecessary suffering, there are few regulations on animal testing in the EU. Recently, a campaign group called “Stop Vivisection” gathered more then 1.1 million signatures mostly from people in seven of the twenty-eight countries in the EU. Their goal was to change the law interdicting tests on animals. Although the Commission denied it, they said that a conference would be held on the matter later in 2016.
      The two worldviews in this conflict would be animal rights activists or citizens that aren’t in favour of animal testing and animal cruelty, and scientists and authority who see animal testing as a security barrier to protect the citizens against untested drugs. Let’s keep in mind that researches done on lab animals allows scientists to develop new drugs to counter certain diseases and is also a good way to see how human bodies would react to said new drugs. Animal cruelty is a problem and surely no one wants to see animals suffer but some say that it is a necessary harm. If you think that animal testing is only a minor problem nowadays, think again. Dating back to 2011, 11.5 million animals were used in labs all over the EU mostly in France, Germany and the United-Kingdom. While Animal testing brings great and a mostly beneficial outcome to humans, some view it as inhumane. Should using animals as tests subjects in labs be banned, knowing that it helps discovering new remedies against potential viruses and epidemics? 
Works Cited
      Peter, Laurence. “EU rejects bid to ban animal testing in European labs.” BBC. BBC, 04 June 2015. Web. 28 April 2016.


Hi bruno.g. You addressed an important issue and succeeded to clearly state both worldviews, which provided me a good understanding of both sides of the issue. I agree with you that animal testing leads in many cases to animal suffering. However, I believe that animal testing should be considered acceptable if humans’ benefits outweigh animals’ suffering. For example, I think animal testing is ethical if a new drug, tested on animals, has the capacity to heal a significant number of people while minimizing animal suffering. I believe that humanity can greatly benefits from experiments conducted on animal, since humans are spared from potential risks. Animals can also benefit from their testing because humans and animals have similar genetics, thus making treatments efficient both for humans and animals. Plus, if we were to prohibit animal testing, there would be no adequate alternative and it would be unethical to expose human beings to those risks. I recognize the risks for animal involved during testing. For such reason, I think that scientists should minimize animal use during experiments and they should develop other efficient alternatives in order for us to stop animal testing one day and to stop animal suffering. But if we look at today, would you like to replace animals with humans in order to stop animal suffering during experiments?