Grigoryan1

Jessica Grigoryan
Professor Batty
English 28
11 December 2016
Animal Testing: Common practice with questionable results
Many individuals find Animal testing a useful tool, however it often times puts the animals being
tested upon in many unnecessary dangers and hardships. There are more than 100 million
animals dying in the U.S. because of this. Animal testing should be put to a stop due to the harsh
circumstances it puts animals through. If animal testing was banned, there would be a lot of less
deaths in animals, animals would suffer a lot less, and its inhumane to let animals go through
that pain. The quality of living for many animals all over the world would improve without
animal testing.
The countries that haven't banned it are United States, Canada, and Australia. If society
was exposed to more information concerning the negative effects of animal testing more actions
would be taken against it. However, while many companies such as Kat von d beauty and
Anastasia Beverly Hills have gone against animal testing, more bannings must be achieved in
order to promote animal wellness somewhere else then. Some personal actions that audience
members can take themselves is refusing to buy products that are animal tested, thus motivating
owners to buy products more suitable to popular demand.

Grigoryan2

In the article Cruelty-Free Cosmetics 101 by Natasha Cole, Cole talks about how people
should use Cruelty-Free Cosmetics to save animal lives. Cosmetic animal testing causes a lot of
pain to the animals and eventually kill the animal. There are many animals that die every year
due to cosmetic animal testing. Natasha Cole said that according to the Humane Society
International, An estimated three hundred thousand animals die each year in cosmetic animal
testing in China alone. These tests cause an enormous amount of pain and suffering and there is
no pain relief administered to the animals. The only time that these animals are relieved of their
torture is when they die. This quote shows what really happens when animals are tested upon,
and how efforts to protect the animals safety are rarely being taken.
An alternative to animal testing is for volunteered human prisoners. The volunteered
subject would then be debriefed on the procedure that is to be performed, and make a final
decision whether or not he or she would like to go through with it. This method of volunteering
is more desirable due to the fact that they give consent to be tested upon and also human subjects
are a more accurate testing tool. Some may say that this is unethical to test on humans, however
if an individual agrees upon the testing and they know exactly what is going to happen, then
prisoner based testing is in no way unethical if consent and debriefing is provided.
In the article, Im insanely committed to my dogs, but... by Barbara Amiel, she mentions
that even though she loves dogs she thinks that the dog breed Beagles are for experiments and
testing. She said, Beagles are dogs that are described almost universally as docile and aching to
please their owners. Rather like me, I think, although my editors may disagree. These qualities
make the beagle the dog of choice for medical experiments. Even though she loves animals

Grigoryan3

especially hers she isnt against animal testing and doesnt think it should be banned. She
believes that animal experiments can be used on humans with bad medical problems.
Barbara Amiels argument is flawed. No animal of any kind should be tested upon for
any reason, no matter how desperate the situation is. Furthermore, Amiel mentioned that she was
against the unnecessary harming of dogs for no reason, so its puzzling that shes promoting
animal testing. Dogs were domesticated by humans for a reason. By testing on dogs, that
communicates that dogs are more of a wild animal with no value to humans, rather than the loyal
and loving pets that many Americans associate dogs with.
Despite the fact that Amiel had certain holes in her overall claim, she did make one
valid point. Animal testing while detrimental to animals has saved numerous lives and helped
achieve a lot medically. While animal testing has caused advancements theres simply one
underlying truth that cannot be ignored by animal testing supporters: animals were not put on
earth solely for human gain. It isnt fair for the human race to cause fellow creatures to suffer on
their behalf, especially without any form of consent.
In the book "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" a doctor does experiments andmedical
research on her cells without her consent. The reason why the doctor did that is because he
thought that she would freak out when he told her and that mostly she wouldn't understand what
he was saying because she was African American. I think it's not fair to do experiments on
people without their consent. This kinda relates to dogs accept dogs can't talk so therefore they
can't give consent when they are being experimented on.

Grigoryan4

It is greatly appreciated to all companies that opposed animal testing. However, it cannot
stop where it currently is right now. While it has benefited the human race greatly, it has many
other results that may not be worth personal gain, such as animal suffering and the occasional
false test on an animal that could cost a human life. In conclusion, the simple and final question
to ponder: Is the human race willing to stay on a path of selfishness, and is the path really going
to work in our favor?
Works Cited:
Amiel, Barbara. "I'm Insanely Committed To My Dogs, But . .." Maclean's 126.10 (2013): 1.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.
Cole, Natasha. "Cruelty-Free Cosmetics 101." Natural Life (2015): 87-91. Consumer Health
Complete - EBSCOhost. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.