Should animals be used for scientific or cosmetic testing?

Animal testing is one of the most controversial and discussed debates in the world. Should we have
the right to test on animals because of the many benefits for humanity it provides? Or should the
animals welfare be taken into consideration and be as highly prioritized as ours?
An estimated 115 million animals are used every year for testing in scientific and commercial fields
around the world. Animals are being used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of
substances and medications, check the safety for products made for human use, and other
biomedical and health care uses. Animal research has been used for several centuries to increase
understanding of the world.
The main argument for animal testing is that it is single-handedly the dominant source for medical
research and developments. Animal testing has enabled numerous life-saving treatments for both
humans and animals. According to The California Biomedical Research Institution, research on
animals have directly resulted in several medical breakthroughs, for example insulin, penicillin and
polio vaccine. Because of the polio vaccine, the amount of people suffering from the disease went
from 350,000 in 1988 to as little as 223 cases in 2012. Animal testing has also contributed with
increased understanding and treating of conditions like cancer, childhood leukemia, brain injuries,
malaria, cystic fibrosis, tuberculosis, and many other diseases.
Another argument for animal testing is the fact that animals are similar to human beings in many
ways, and are therefore appropriate research subjects. Chimpanzees share about 99% of their DNA
with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. All mammals share the same organs
that work in the same way as they do in humans, which means that diseases found in humans will
also be found in animals. Animals are the only living creature that shares the same complex
structure that human beings have. Consequently, there are no other alternatives in medical research
that are as adequate and medically correct as animal testing.
You might not associate animal testing with being animal friendly, but there are in fact a lot of strict
rules and regulations regarding the testing of animals. In the United States, animal research is
regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Because of the required standards from this
organization, the animals are most often not treated inhumanely or cruel. Furthermore, the results of
the testing would not be as reliable if the animals were not treated correctly. A stressed or crowded
animal will not provide the same test results as an animal feeling normal, therefore the scientists
must be treating the animals humanely.
On the other hand, the Animal Welfare Act does not protect the rights of all animals. Animals that
the AWA does protect like dogs, cats and primates only comprise around 5% of the animals used in
animal research. Even though they should be protected aswell, it isnt really necessary because of
the lack of testing on them. The other 95% of animals used in animal research consists of rats, mice,
fish and birds. These animals may not be liked in the general population, but they are still animals
capable of feeling and does not deserve to be treated inhumanely. According to Humane Society
International, animals used in experiments live under horrible conditions where they are exposed to
force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, long periods of physical restraint, etc.
Opponents of animal testing also say that there are in fact other methods and alternatives in medical
research that would replace the need for animals. By using in vitro (in glass) testing, and studying
human cells, you can get results that are equally as accurate as testing on animals. The results might
even be more accurate, since the testing is being done on human cells instead of animal cells. There
are even techniques that can produce artificial human skin by using the human cells, which means
that cosmetic animal testing can be completely taken away. There are computer models with virtual
reconstruction of human molecular structure that can predict the toxicity of substances. The only
problem with this method is that in order to build the programme in an accurate and reliable way,
you need information from animal research. Otherwise it wont be correct because we cant predict

what is going to happen. On the other hand, it is better to only need to test on a limited amount of
animals and then build the computer programme and never have to use animal research again, than
to repeatedly use animals in medical experiments.
Lastly, even though animal testing might be the closest we will get to an accurate result since they
are so similar to humans, it doesnt necessarily mean that everything that works on animals works
on humans. Animals and humans are after all different species with different functions. Animal
testing does not reliably predict results in human beings. The majority of the drugs that are a result
from animal testing, fail to give the same effect on humans as it did on animals. Over 100 stroke
drugs that were effective on animals have failed in humans, and over 85 HIV vaccines failed in
humans despite being successful in animals.
Personally, I believe that medical research can be done without the requirement for animals.
Cosmetic animal testing can already be completely replaced with other methods, and also some of
the medical research. If the development of medical research in other fields than animal testing
continues, I think we can completely replace animal testing with methods that are animal friendly.
Regarding the fact that many tests on animals fail, I think it is a waste of both money and lives to
invest in animal testing. The respect and general treatment towards animals should be improved,
and we as humans are responsible.