Zapata 1

Caterina Zapata
SLCC English 1010
Ms. Griffin
1/11/17

Animal Testing
Have you ever stopped to think the amount of suffering that animals in laboratories have
to go through just so you can have that lipstick or mascara? Defenseless animals in laboratories
are beaten, starved, burned, and mutilated just to have a nifty little pill or some blue unnatural
eyeshadow. Shouldn't there be laws that protect these animals from such cruel and unusual
experiments? There is only 1 law protecting laboratory animals it is called the Animal Welfare
Act. This law protects "pets" such as dogs or cats, but not rats or mice which make up 90-95
percent of Laboratory Animals. It requires companies to have committees that oversee the
experiments. Unfortunately, these committees are made by the companies themselves so in
reality they don't actually protect the animals from immoral conduct. ("Animals in Research and
Testing.", 2012). In these laboratories it is acceptable to burn these animals with acid or remove
their eyeballs just to develop a new product that will increase profit. Sadly there is no longer any
morals or feelings towards these poor animals. Once, they have served their purpose they are
killed. Their whole lives they are abused and experimented on. Animal testing needs to stop, it is
immoral and unnecessary.
Animal testing is extremely cruel and immoral. There is no need for it since there are
other ways to do experiments and most of the time the data doesn't transfer to humans. It is

Zapata 2

shameful that animal testing still exist and it is even ridiculous that they have to go through such
agony. In fact procon.org says:
" According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are
commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged
periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing
process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide
asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means." ("Should Animals be Used for
Scientific or Commercial Testing?", 2016).
A specific reason why people don't agree with animal testing but still support it is
because they believe the alternative is worse. Many people have an understanding that animal
testing is required to develop medications, cure diseases, and learn more about how the human
body works, Peta says;
"The fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many tests on
animals are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal
tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and
effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they dont work or are dangerous. And of
the small percentage of drugs approved for human use, half end up being relabeled because of
side effects that were not identified in tests on animals." ("Animal Testing Is Bad Science:
Point/Counterpoint.", N.d.).
In fact, there are many alternatives to animal testing. There is a new way to test
substances on human organs without the human. Basically scientists use stem cells from a patient

Zapata 3

to create an organ with their DNA in a specific environment that mimics a human body. They are
called "organoids". What's so interesting about this is that they can use an organ created from
your DNA to test different medications to see which one is best for you. The best part is there is
not animal testing involved. "Organoids are also being used to model developmental diseases
that would be impossible or unethical to study in humans. Developmental biologist Jrgen
Knoblich of the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology in Vienna and colleagues have succeeded
in growing cerebral organoids that reproduce features of a growing brain, including individual
cell layers." ("Will Organs-in-a-Dish Ever Replace Animal Models?", 2016).
Another issue that is often brought up is what about Chimpanzees? Doesn't doing
research on them help humans because our DNA is practically identical? If there are so many
people saying that experiments on rats and other rodents are useless to humans because the DNA
is so different. Theoretically, experiments on Chimpanzees would be ideal. Well The New York
Times Published an article that says;
"'We find no evidence that there is a need to continue to do research of an invasive sort on
chimpanzees, not now and not going into the future,' Dr. Collins said.
He cited two events that had led to the decision. The first was an extensive independent
assessment published in 2011 that investigated the usefulness of chimpanzees for biomedical
research. That report led the agency to retire a sizable portion of its chimpanzees in 2013 and set
stricter requirements for research with the primates." ("When Is Animal Testing Justified?",
2015).
In conclusion, Animal testing is extremely unnecessary, it just brings pain and suffering
to animals without a valid reason. There are better ways to test medications and diseases that

Zapata 4

allow more accurate data like "organoids". They allow scientists to prescribe a medication that is
right for the person and the side effects are already calculated. They also allow for
experimentation that will actually be beneficial to humans since these organs are being
introduced diseases that naturally occur in humans. Which allow for better medications and
better outcomes.

References

ProCon. "Should Animals be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?" ProCon.org.

N.p., May 24, 2016. Web. January 9, 2017.

Peta "Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint." PETA. Rabbit Image, n.d.
Web. 12 Jan. 2017.

Lewis, Tanya. "Will Organs-in-a-Dish Ever Replace Animal Models?" The Scientist. Lab
X Media Group, 19 July 2016. Web. 11 Jan. 2017.

B, Robinson. "Animals in Research and Testing." Neavs. New England Anti-Vivisection

Society, 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 12 Jan. 2017.

Gonchar, Michael. "When Is Animal Testing Justified?" The New York Times. The New
York Times Company, 20 Nov. 2015. Web. 11 Jan. 2017.