The use of animals in scientific experimentation should continue to be fought against because it is morally wrong, there are alternatives to animal experimentation, and the unnecessary research it involves. The use of animals in experimentation has been a debate and a controversy for quite some time now. Many have strong opinions and views on this sensitive issue. That leads us to one question: Is it right? There are alternatives to animal experimentation, and they are addressed by some government websites. The number of animals used for experimentation tens of millions. Scientists defend animal research saying that this testing has contributed greatly to the advancement of ...view middle of the document...
Those alternatives would provide the same results, and would not implicate any damage to animals. Human skin testing is supposed to soon replace all animal testing in the cosmetic field, and some private companies have already resorted to it. This new method of testing should make a lot of sense, because the skin can be grown in a laboratory dish, and spare tens of thousands of animals. But the reason why cosmetic corporation have been reversing to this method, is because it is actually cheaper to grow skin, than to maintain thousands of animals. (MacRae, F. 2007)
Animal stem cell is the other method that has been deemed appropriate as an alternative to animal testing. The stem cells can be easily acquired during any animal's delivery, collected, and stored for testing. Perhaps this method will not completely stop vivisection, at least not in the very immediate future, but it is a viable source, and one that has been very promising (Doris Lin, 2012)
The animal welfare control claims that it is inappropriate to test on animal, especially when the testing is for futile cosmetic products, because they assert that animal's body composition is different to a human body, therefore, a medical product that might help cure the disease on an animal, doesn't necessarily work on another animals, and especially on humans. So why subject these animals to pain, diseases and vivisection, when the results might not be of any help? Expert continue to say that, though they are aware of the many subtle differences between animals and humans, animals continue to be the closest match they can think of. Both animal welfare control and scientists debate endlessly on this topic: with scientists listing all the cure that were identified thanks to animal research, and the animal rights that claim this is unnecessary torture, especially when expert conduct the same experiments several times with the same result.
To add to the debate between scientists and animal welfare control, and fighting alongside the animal rights, we have another set of scientists. The ones that work and record the changes in environment. Apparently most animals used for research purposes, already loaded with toxic materials injected into them during the trial study, are put to sleep using a lethal injection of carbon dioxide, then left to decay in open areas. The carcasses of the euthanized animals, both in captivity or not, then release the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which subsequently contributes to global warming, with all the consequences of it.
Animal rights claim that it's impossible to actually determine how many animals are tortured every year, because not all labs release the actual number of animals acquired, and some animals are acquired illegally. They also believe that animals such as rabbits, mice and guinea pigs are hardly counted in their totals, and that their torture starts even before the testing begins, as these animals are kept in very small plastic boxes...