Why scientists should not test on animals?
The harm that is committed against animals should not be minimized because they are not considered to be “human.” In conclusion, animal testing should be eliminated because it violates animals’ rights, it causes pain and suffering to the experimental animals, and other means of testing product toxicity are available.
Why should we test on animals?
The animal tests provide data on efficacy and safety. Testing on animals also serves to protect consumers, workers and the environment from the harmful effects of chemicals. All chemicals for commercial or personal use must be tested so that their effect on the people and animals exposed to them is understood.
Is it bad to test on animals?
The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Despite many decades of studying conditions such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, we do not yet have reliable and fully effective cures. …
What can we do instead of animal testing?
These alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues (also known as in vitro methods), advanced computer-modeling techniques (often referred to as in silico models), and studies with human volunteers.
Do you think it’s necessary to use animal testing?
Despite whether you stand for animal rights, welfare or have no beliefs about animal testing, i think it should be part of our moral duty as scientists to take care and reduce the use of animals where possible. If we would make the same choice of less tests on humans, then we should extend it to animals as well.
Why are scientists not allowed to experiment on animals?
At an extreme end of the ethics spectrum is the claim that all animals have rights equal to humans, and therefore any experiment that wouldn’t ethically be conducted on humans shouldn’t be conducted on any animal. Ethics boards today tend to weigh up the potential benefits of an experiment with the risks of harm and suffering to the animal.
Can a law be changed to make animal testing optional?
Perhaps the law could be changed so that animal testing was optional, rather than compulsory. Scientists could decide not to test drugs on animals if they knew that it was safe to do so. We would need alternatives to animal testing, which could safely test drugs without harmful consequences for humans.
Is there need for more animal testing of new drugs?
Although pro testing campaigners say that the tragedy shows the need for more extensive animal testing of new drugs the reality is that no amount of animal testing could have predicted the effect thalidomide has on human pregnancies. The only way of establishing this would be in vitro testing on human tissue.