Arlin Santa CruzMr. YoderEnglish IVFebruary 1st, 2018Animal Testing Creatures and people are the same in many different manners and have been compared to one another for centuries. There have been many medical advancements and many cures to diseases thanks to the help of animal testing. However, the biological similarities between humans and animals do not make animal experimentation all the more justifiable. While there are particular pros to animal testing, it is overall morally and ethically wrong. The reasons for why animal research should be put to an end is because of the cruelty behind animal abuse. Another argument disputing animal examination are the costs for research. The final reason for which animal experimentation should be put to an end is because of the alternative approaches of research that are achievable. When it comes to animal testing, it is almost inevitable for an animal to go through the whole process without being hurt. Millions of animals receive painful treatments and live in horrible conditions while being tested which often results in their death. The following words said by Sgt. Daniel Estrada, “When we are no longer cruel and inhumane towards animals, will be the day when we have truly grown as a society,” is incredibly accurate because the cruel actions made upon animals directly reflect the intentions and impurities of the society as whole. If the public is aware and at peace with animal abuse, then it represents how malicious people really are. An interesting fact stated is that, “10% of animals being tested experience harmful effects, 21% experience minor discomfort, 15% experience severe discomfort, and 30% had an increase in death and disease,” (Perry 2). These percentages give great insight to the cruelty happening among these animal experimentation labs. Others may argue the fact that even though experimentation can be damaging to animals, it is needed for medical improvements. For example, sometimes it is important to have to harm animals in order to ensure the safety for humans. “Claude Bernard, known as the father of physiology, stated that ‘experiments on animals are entirely conclusive for the toxicology and hygiene of man,'” (Hajar 2). He is stating that it is necessary to do animal research in order to ensure total safety for humans. In addition, if one were to try out a product and get some type of incurable breakout, the results could range from millions of others being infected as well, to the company being sued for such effects. That is why it is important to try out these products on animals first in order to see the effects the product has on a living thing before proceeding to humans. With that argument however, comes a very important question: How many animals have to die or be harmed to help the security of human safety? Companies like Kylie Cosmetics ensure customers that the products are completely 100% not measured on animals. This is proof that it is possible to get positive results without risking the safeness of animals. Medical advancements do not thrive off the abuse of animals. Certain rules and laws could be imposed to reduce the amount of abuse happening within the experiment labs. Therefore, if scientists were more careful with their subjects and if the living conditions were better for the animals, it would be very much possible for medical advancements to proceed without such abuse. Besides the inhumane matter behind animal testing, one needs keep in mind the matter of cost as well. A lot of money goes into animal research and sometimes it it unsure whether or not that money is being put to good use. In this article, it is stated that, “Fortunately, other, more reliable methods that represent a far better investment of research funds can be employed,” (Rowan 80). What this article is referring to in this particular quote is that sometimes, the research that is administered from animal testing is not always constructive in addressing the urgent medical complications required at the time. So in other words, there are other methods that would not cost as much that could be much more of use than animal experimentation. For example, animal testing could only provide a little bit of information at small increments of time. If a vaccine for a deadly disease going around the world was needed, it would take a long time and a lot of animals to find a cure. That money should be used wisely and more efficiently rather than being wasted on research that could have no positive results at all. However, it could also be argued that the resemblance of the cell structures and biology between animals and humans are what help forward such medical advancements which is why it is necessary for animal experimentation. Neither penicillin nor the vaccine for Polio would have been discovered if it had not been for the pricey, yet beneficial animal research. While this may be true, it is also appropriate to say that many years have gone by and the medical field has since then exponentially grown. Also in the article, under ‘Better Methods,’ it is written that techniques are available, such as, “epidemiological studies, clinical intervention trials, astute clinical observation aided by laboratory testing, human tissue and cell cultures, autopsy studies, endoscopic examination and biopsy, as well as new imaging methods,”(Rowan 81). What is basically being said is that human tissue and human skin can be used to discover more treatments. So as one could see, technology has made it possible for there to be other types of inexpensive experiments: not just animal ones. As minds and scientists continue to build, it is even more likely that new, more, and better methods come into play and animal testing could go away for good.Finally, there are many other methods available that are proven to be more accurate while at the same time being less harmful. In this text it is written that, “Many researchers have also begun to rely solely on human data and cell and tissue assays to address large areas of therapeutic research and development,” (Ferdowsian 5). This is a much more accurate, helpful, and efficient experiment than animal testing because scientists are using actual human data and no longer comparing the somewhat similar anatomies between human beings and animals. This is sustained by the conclusion made at the end of the paragraph that says, “When compared with data from animal experiments, this system has produced more accurate pre-clinical data,” (Ferdowsian 5). This illustrates how alternative methods of research can benefit the medical world more than if scientists were to use animals because of the precise factual data that resulted. However, there are those that could argue that some other methods are too time consuming and could require human volunteers. This can easily be refuted by the fact that it takes a larger number of animals, time, and money to figure out the tiny significant differences between how an animal would react to a product, and how a human would react to a product. With other research methods, the differences in animal structures compared to human ones would no longer be a problem. In this text, it is said that there is an “emerging science of molecular epidemiology, which relates genetic, metabolic and biochemical factors, with epidemiological data on disease incidence, offers significant promise for identifying the causes of human disease,” (Rowan 81). This is more evidence that, although it may take more time to do these experiments, the results are highly productive in helping eliminate all health problems and conflicts. Animal testing does have its upsides. For example, it ensures the safety for humans by using animals as a test. It also expensive but worth finding new cures for diseases. Another instance is how animal testing is less time-consuming and effective.Yet, it is more evident that animal research is harmful and destructive to the whole of society. The reasons for which this was illustrated was because of the cruelty behind animal abuse and its detrimental effects. Another argument for why animal measurements are wrong is because the costs for using animals outweigh the benefits by far. The last reason for which animal research is morally incorrect is because there are many other, and more efficient, alternative methods to use other than testing on animals. Works CitedPerry, Pauline. “Ethics of Animal Research: A UK Perspective | ILAR Journal | Oxford Academic.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 Jan. 2007, academic.oup.com/ilarjournal/article-abstract/48/1/42/690435/The-Ethics-of-Animal-Research-A-UK-Perspective.Ferdowsian, Hope R., and Nancy Beck. “Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research.” PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, 7 Sept. 2011, journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024059.Rowan, Andrew N. “The Benefits and Ethics of Animal Research.” Semantics Scholar, Scientific American, Feb. 1997, pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d21c/4e74e1fd899de4f8bd60c17967d201a8be7e.pdf.Hajar, Rachel. “Animal Testing and Medicine.” Heart Views?: The Official Journal of the Gulf Heart Association 12.1 (2011): 42. PMC. Web. 1 Feb. 2018.