Hobbies And Interests
Human Suffering
Many in favor of continuing animal testing point out that such testing spares human beings from having to suffer needlessly. If animal testing can prevent people from suffering and save the lives of people, it should not be abolished, its proponents argue.
Animal Suffering
Animal rights activists counter that while we may be reducing human suffering, we are causing animals to suffer. They believe that animals should be recognized as living beings who have rights of their own, and that people should not simply use them to meet their own needs. For this reason, they argue that we have a moral duty to end animal testing.
Medical Breakthroughs
Most supporters of animal testing cite the medical breakthroughs that have come about as a result of testing and experimenting using laboratory animals. At the time of publication, animals are used for testing all new pharmaceutical products and cleaning agents, among other products. To discontinue this practice could bring the medical industry to a halt by severely diminishing the pharmaceutical industry's ability to introduce new medications and vaccines and also increase the danger to people from new, untested products.
Breakthroughs from Animal Testing are Overstated
Opponents of animal testing say that the breakthroughs that have come from animal testing are often exaggerated. They also note that many pharmaceutical products tested on animals and approved as safe turn out to be dangerous for people. In April 2005, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered the recall of Bextra, an arthritis medication that had been tested on animals and deemed safe for human use. However, it was later found to cause complications, including death, in patients who used it. The FDA reported in 2004 that 92 out of 100 products that passed the animal testing phase of development failed during the human trial phase of development. Because of such cases, animal rights activists argue that animal testing should be discontinued.
Similarity of Animals to People
Those who support animal testing argue that we derive great benefit from testing on animals because the genetic makeup of the animals used in laboratories is very similar to that of humans. The reactions of these animals can tell scientists a significant amount about how a person will react to similar treatments or products.
Alternatives to Animal Testing
Opponents argue that the the laboratory rats and mice used in testing are very different from people. Humans share just one-fourth of our DNA with laboratory rats and mice. It is suggested that a better alternative to finding out how humans will react to different treatments is testing products using tissue or cell cultures grown from human cells in a laboratory.