In conclusion, I am strongly against the use of animal testing because research methods and science now offer viable alternatives. In the past animal testing was seen as sometimes the only way to gain viable results. We now as a society have access to multiple different testing programmes using breakthroughs in laboratory science. Humane methods are what we as a society should be striving towards and whilst in the past there was no real substitute to using live subjects that is no longer the case as people who have strong beliefs against using animals to test has been working nonstop to create valuable alternatives which they have been successful in doing so. Animal testing should be consigned to the past even thought we cannot forgot what us humans have did to animals in the past and how cruel we were, but we should try move forward. We can acknowledge the contribution that animal testing has made to science and medicine whilst recognising that it is no longer required.

Continuing the reasons to argue against the use of animals is that animal testing is more expensive than alternative methods and are a waste of government money. “An unscheduled DNA synthesis animal test costs $32000 while the vitro alternative costs $11000”. If comparable results can be obtained using vitro alternative at a third of the cost, there is no reason to continue with expensive, outdated live animal tests when there is a viable alternative. Alternative tests are proven to have the same effect if not better than animal tests, and I believe that they should be used instead of testing on animals.

Another argument supporting the use of animal testing is that in some circumstances animals themselves benefit from results of the studies. A paper I read stated that “if vaccines were not tested on animals millions of animals would have died from rabies, feline leukaemia, distemper, infectious hepatitis virus, tetanus, anthrax and canine parvo virus”. This would indicate that the suffering of the few is acceptable as it brings benefit to an immeasurable amount. In my opinion this is perhaps one of the most persuasive arguments supporting the use of live animal testing but even this has now become unnecessary through scientific breakthrough as there is now other methods of testing that can cure disease like rabies, canine parvo virus etc.

However, drugs that pass animal testing are not necessarily safe for human use. For example “the 1950s sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities was tested on animals prior to its release”. This shows that not all drugs, medicines and treatments are safe even when they have been testing on animals. Do we place too much trust in animal testing when there will always be risks attached to drugs and treatments.

Researchers who support the use of animal testing argue that animals are appropriate research subjects as they are genetically similar to humans. “Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans”. This would suggest that testing results obtained using certain species would give transferrable results in humans. Even though there is an argument for using genetically similar species the results cannot be guaranteed as even a small genetic difference of 1-2% may make a huge difference to the results. This small difference may skew the results so much that they are useless.

On the other hand the use of animal testing is cruel and inhumane. A study I found stated that “the draize eye test, used by cosmetics companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involves rabbits being incapacitated in stocks with their eyelids held open with clips, sometimes for multiple days” Does the potential benefit of this test outweigh the cruelty inflicted on the rabbits involved? Animals should not be treated in such a manner as, it is not humane to do so and should never be inflicted on living creatures.