Using Animals for Testing Is Unethical

Animal testing remains one of the most controversial, global issues today. Scientists around the globe use different animals in order to test products ranging from suntan lotion to cancer drugs.

Many different species are used, but the most common include mice, fish, rats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, birds, cats, dogs, mini-pigs, and non-human primates. There are hardly any medical treatments used by humans that have not been previously tested on animals.

During these tests, animals are tortured for hours to weeks and eventually die. Most people overlook or simply don’t care about whether it is ethically permissible to use animals for testing.

Isn’t it time we started thinking about the moral side of this practice?

Is Human Life More "Valuable" Than Animal Life?

We can all agree on the fact that torturing another human is morally wrong. But why most people don’t think the same when it comes to animals?

Ethics have to do with a person’s moral code. The latter guides their actions, choices, and behavior. This moral code determines what is right or wrong not only for an individual but for society as a whole. I’m sure that we can all agree on the fact that torturing another human is morally wrong.

But why most people don’t think the same when it comes to animals? Human life is much more valuable than animal life. I’m sure that’s the first answer that came to your mind. Is that true though?

Aren’t both humans and animals breathing, living beings? Who decides whose life is more valuable? Some people argue that animals are inferior to humans due to their lack of rationality and language. This argument can be characterized as nothing but absurd.

There are individuals that suffer from mental disorders such as paranoia or schizophrenia, which deprive them of the ability to think rationally. Would that be an excuse to torture them as we do with animals? Taking all of the above into consideration, from my perspective, animals have as much right to life as human beings.

Do Animals Die for a Worthy Cause?

Former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni has admitted that animal testing isn’t really working and that alternatives should be found.

Another argument I often encounter that supposedly justifies animal testing is that many animals are slaughtered for food anyway, whereas those killed in a lab die for a worthy cause. The thing is, that many animal deaths through research not only are unnecessary but also end up being for nothing. That is because the findings can often be misleading. The truth is that an animal’s response to a drug can be very different from a human’s. Also, the stress that animals endure in labs can alter the findings from the experiments, making the results meaningless.

Former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni is one of many scientists who have admitted that experimenting on animals isn’t really working and that alternatives should be found.

Nevertheless, let’s forget about this argument for a moment and think about this: would you be willing to give your own life for this worthy cause? Let me guess. Your answer is no, and that is because your primal instinct is survival. The same as animals’.

There Are Alternatives to Animal Testing

Test-tube studies using human cells and tissues, statistics, computer models, and human patient simulators are alternatives to animal testing that have already been successful.

As I mentioned above, the findings from the experiments conducted on animals can be misleading. And that brings me to another important issue. What many people are unaware of, is the fact that there have already been successful alternatives to animal testing: test-tube studies using human cells and tissues, statistics, computer models, and human patient simulators. And they’re about to become even more successful in the future. My point is, that we can have great medical advances without torturing animals.

It is the ability to suffer, not the ability to reason that should be the benchmark of how we treat other beings.

To some people, the phrase “animal rights” conjures up images of extremist groups of activists who fervently demonstrate for the interests of animals. I’d like to clarify that I’m not one of them.

I’m a simple person with immense love and respect for animals, and a desire to raise awareness on the cruelty behind animal testing. It is the ability to suffer, not the ability to reason that should be the benchmark of how we treat other beings.

What do you think? Can we be moral and at the same time allow the torture and death of another being?