Huff 1

Kaylan Huff
English 1010D-03
George M. Sean
10 December 2015
Animal Testing Is Wrong
Many people view animals as a product used for research or a companion. A persons
feelings about animals should not ignore the fact that animal testing is a major problem many
companies fail to notice when testing. According to the article, Animal Experiments:
Overview, written by Francis S. Collins:
Each year, more than 100 million animals including mice, rats,
frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and
birds are killed in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical
training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug,
food, and cosmetics testing. (paragraph 2)
For multiple decades animals have been testing the safety of products, however animal testing
violates animals rights when used for research, animal testing is unnecessary and ineffective,
and it is supported by our own foundations.
Animals being used as objects for research and medical testing is probably one of the
most debated topics behind animal rights. Many countries have come up with laws to help
prevent this abuse to animals. In the article, Animal Rights, written by Gale Detroit, it states,
In 1966 the U.S. congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) Requiring minimum standards
of care and treatment for animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported
commercially, or exhibited to the public. However, many companies can oversee this federal

Huff 2
law and arent subjected to inspections because they only experiment on animals such as mice or
rats. There are many holes within the Animal Welfare Act that need to be improved. People need
to realize how much animals are alike to humans; they think, experience, act, and feel pain just
as humans do. It is not fair that animals are not given a choice when they are experimented on,
and when humans decide an animals fate they are taking away all of the animals rights. Not only
does animal testing take away animals rights, but it is also very ineffective and unnecessary.
One debate that has recently arose is whether or not animal testing is unnecessary and
ineffective. The amount of pain caused on the animals compared to the amount of success
coming from animal testing is much higher. When researching, many articles have stated that
animals biology is a lot different from humans. In the article, Animal Experiments: Overview,
written by Francis S. Collins, it states, For example, according to former National Cancer
Institute Director Dr. Richard Klausner, We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it
simply didnt work in humans. It is time for scientists behind animal testing to adapt to new
methods and refocus to understand disease biology in humans. There have been many
opportunities for scientists to grasp on to new methods. One example stated in the article, 3Dprinting human skin: The end of animal testing? written by Jessica Mendoza states, For years,
scientists have been working to apply 3D printing in medicine and veterinary care by using
living cells instead of plastic or metal in the same layering process that has brought us toys, food,
accessories, and even cars, Popular Science reported. Computers have also been used to detect
potential harm from a chemical or product. There are many alternative ways to avoid animal
testing that have been proven to be just as effective if not more. Not only is animal testing
unreliable and ineffective, however the funding and accountability of animal testing is very
questionable.

Huff 3
The funding an accountability provided for animal testing is funded through many ways
people may or may not know about. Obviously people put plenty of thought to where their tax
dollars are being spent, however do they know about the taxes put toward animal testing? The
Daily Caller News Foundation posted an article written by Michael Bastasch, Feds spend up to
$14.5 billion annually on animal testing, explaining where the funds for animal testing come
from. It states, The government spends as much as $14.5 billion per year on animal
experimentation, with some projects siphoning off taxpayer dollars for decade and resulting in
the cruel treatment of an unknown number of animals. It would be very unbelievable for people
of the United States to willingly agree to pay taxes toward animal testing. The government has
surely thought out the perfect way to undermine millions of Americans paying for animal testing.
It is hard for most Americans to become aware of every single fund going into their taxes,
however taxpayers should be aware of the harms they are unknowingly causing. There is a vast
amount of funds used towards heavy topics such as animal testing, although the only way for the
United States to become aware is if each person researches their taxes on their own. Even though
there are many objections to animal testing some people view animal testing as a good thing.
Multiple people justify animal testing as a positive concept because they believe the
outcomes from animal testing are worth the pain and suffering caused to those animals. It is true
that animal testing has brought multiple cures and vaccinations for humans, however animal
testing isnt necessary anymore. There are other alternative ways to experiment with medical
research without using animals at all. In the article, Animal Testing Is Not Essential for Medical
Research, written by C. Ray Greek and Jean Swingle Greek, it states
Modern medical advances such as antibiotics and vaccines are not
the result of animal experiments. For example, experiments with

Huff 4
mice and rats failed to turn up any connections between cancer and
smoking. Epidemiological studies, not animal experiments, found
links between heart disease and cholesterol. Furthermore, more
than half of the medications released between 1976 and 1985 were
taken off the market or relabeled because dangerous side effects
were discovered that had not been found in animal experiments.
AIDS research with primates has also shown a high level of
failure. (paragraph 1)
There are other options such as computers, 3D-printing human skin, modeling studies, clinical
research and many others that will improve medical advances other than animal testing. The
value of animals should be put at the same level as humans.
People argue that humans are a much higher species than the animals, therefore the
animals have no rights. In the article, Animals and Medical Science: A Vision of a New Era,
written by David O. Wiebers, it states, Many types of animals are sufficiently biologically
similar to humans in their disease susceptibility to be used for study of processes in humans; and
animals have shorter lives, so intervention outcomes can be studied over the course of a
lifespan. The problem with this reasoning is the medical field does not think about the animals
as anything else than an object. The article, Animals and Medical Science: A vision of a New
Era, talks a lot about the similarities between animals and humans, however avoids the fact that
animals have the same thoughts, feelings, desires, pain, and emotions as humans. Animals
experience pain the same way as humans, therefore it is unethical to experiment on them just
because the human species is higher than theirs.

Huff 5
For multiple decades animals have been testing the safety of products, however animal
testing violates animals rights when used for research, animal testing is unnecessary and
ineffective, and it is supported by our own foundations. Animal testing cannot be justified just
because humans are selfishly putting themselves before the animals. The people behind the
laboratories say how much animals are alike humans, therefore it is not okay to take away
animals rights just because animals are incapable of saying no. The only way to help these
animals be treated with respect is to hear the peoples voices, and it will help the world become
more vocal and aware of this problem!

Huff 6
Works Cited
Mendoza, Jessica. "3D-printing human skin: The end of animal testing?" Christian Science
Monitor 19 May 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

"Animal Rights." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2014. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Greek, C. Ray, and Jean Swingle Greek. "Animal Testing Is Not Essential for Medical
Research." Animal Experimentation. Ed. Cindy Mur. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. At
Issue. Rpt. from "Research on Animals Does Little Good." Rocky Mountain News 12 Oct. 1998:
4A. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

"Animals and Medical Science: A Vision of a New Era." Medicine, Health, and Bioethics: Essential
Primary Sources. Ed. K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 4954. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Animal Experiments: Overview. PETA. 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Bastash, Michael. Feds Spend up to $14.5 Billion Annually on Animal Testing. The Daily
Caller. 5 Dec. 2013. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Huff 7