First Last

AP English Language 11B

Mrs. Last

24 February 2005

Limit Animal Testing

            Animal testing has always been an important part of scientific and medical advances.  Studying the results of just one experiment can provide invaluable breakthroughs leading to cures for patients.   If scientists do not experiment on animals, the risky trial runs would have to be conducted on humans.  Despite the merits of animal testing though, experimental cats, dogs, and primates face intolerable cruelty inside the laboratory.  They have not the means of resisting subjection to the painful and often repeated Frankenstein experiments where scientists injure an animal so that they could test a new drug.  Thousands of animals die each year- most of them forced to stay alive many months, limping sickly in their cages while researchers study them before they are put to death.  Fortunately though, not all animal case studies resemble torture chambers, and they do not occur as frequently as one may think.  To shield the animals from excessive abuse by testing while continuing scientific and medical discoveries’ advancement, each animal subject to testing should require a detailed written explanation submitted to and approved by the FDA.

            As of now, scientists are free to test new drugs and devices on animals without any approval.  Their only responsibility is to make sure that the test subjects are “killed in a humane way promptly after the conclusion of the scientific investigation.”  It is ironic that the law only protects the animals when they are about to die.  Before that, researchers are free to conduct any test they want.  Some experiments cripple the animal for many months so the scientists have time to make observations while the animal suffers.  In one test, a primate was placed in a guillotine-like device with a blunt “blade” designed to break the animal’s neck while keeping it alive to test a spinal-cord repairing procedure.  Its head remained locked in a vise while its body laid limp on a steel table for eighteen weeks as doctors attempted to “heal” the primate (the procedure was never successful).  Doubtless, these animals suffer torturously during prolonged experimentations.  What angers many people is that these animals are forced to endure pain because they do not have the means to resist.  The only difference between a human and an animal is their inability to say ‘no’ to forced lab tests.  Animals feel and hurt the same way humans do, contrary to the popular belief that they are ‘dumb’ and ‘don’t have feelings.’  Scientists exploit animals’ inability to speak and force them into oppressive lab cages where they are deliberately crippled and eventually killed.

            Scientists however, see little alternatives to animal testing the way it currently is.  For the quantitative researcher, reason rules.  The only viable option that would preserve animal rights is to skip animal testing and conduct new drug and procedural investigations directly on humans.  The risk presented to humans would be too great.  By precedence, not by exploitation, do animals go into the caged observation room.  Experiments may often fail, resulting in a fatality.  Animal test subjects can be quickly bred before they are put to risk, thus leaving several healthy offspring (to be used for other experiments, though).  Humans cannot reproduce as fast, and thus do not meet the demand in quantity required for tests that use several subjects.  Morality aside, animals, with their faster reproductive cycles, are the only viable subjects in the lab.  Faster breeding rates offer an additional advantage of flexibility since there are more test subjects.  Experiments that fail the first time could easily be retried with slightly adjusted variables.  This increases the productivity of the experiment and leads to faster results.  The findings of these tests are then applied to new developments that lead to new cures and therapies for humans.  Banning animal testing would bottleneck the production process at its infancy, thus stunting coveted scientific advancement.   

            Many people also exaggerate the “Frankenstein” laboratories where cats and dogs are strapped to torture devices.  Although such experiments exist, like the one described above, such monstrous labs are quite rare.  The large majority of experiments do not harm the animal.  Most lab animals are test subjects for day-to-day products like shampoo and body lotion- substances already widely used by humans.  The thought of massive animal slayings in dark labs is largely imagined.

            Both sides have their merits.  Scientists and researchers must continue to use animals to continue the advance in health and technology.  However, they must do so in a way that respects the rights of the animals, who cannot speak for themselves.  A total ban on animal testing would strangle research productivity.  Instead, laboratories that conduct any sort of experiment requiring procedures more intrusive than applying topical creams (i.e.: lotion) on animals must apply for a permit for each animal tested.  Forcing institutions to apply each time will limit the excessive abuses against animals.  The FDA (Food & Drug Administration) will screen all applications and decide whether the experiment is worth violating the rights of the animal.  FDA screening also controls the number of animals that are put to risk by each institution.  Allotments encourage scientists to conduct their experiments more carefully to prevent the unnecessary suffering of extra test subjects.  This limited ban effectively curbs the worst aspects of animal testing while still leaving leeway for researchers to make new developments important to society.

Works Cited

N.A.A.A.T. 4 April 2004. National Association Against Animal Testing. 12 Mar. 2004 <http://www.naaat.org>

[ Valedictorian Essays ] [ About the Essay Writers ] [ Our Policy ] [ Custom Essays ] [ Free Essays ] [ Links ] [ Can't Pay? ]