Topic: Banning Animal Testing

Introduction:
How long humanity will continue to utilize animals for their own gain? History
is the evidence that humans have been hunting the innocent animals for their
pleasure.
Thesis:
In my opinion, however, nowadays, many countries have put ban on animal
hunting, but the one thing that remain stagnant: people still not have stopped
using animals for different purposes. These days, on the name of experiments,
scientists have been risking the lives of these poor creatures. These
academicians/scholars disregard the suffering that they bring to innocuous
animals. There is no much difference remain between the hunters and
scientists if they brutally kill/slaughter them for their own good or for the sake
of development.
First Argument:
Animal testing can be proved as counter-productive. According to a former
Director of Huntingdon Life Sciences, the renowned animal testing corporation,
using animals as "models" to anticipate human reactions to pharmaceuticals or
chemicals is worse than worthless, with a prediction rate (for negative side-
effects) of just 5-25%! Because of this, even though all prescription
medications have undergone "safety" testing on animals, millions of people
nevertheless experience adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to them. The
complexity of a live creature, including its organs, circulatory system, and
genetic regulation, according to proponents of animal testing, would alter how
medications work in a manner that single tissue samples cannot. This
argument is inaccurate because it does not take into consideration how
distinct nonhuman systems are from human systems.
Evidence:
‘Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of
medication, but they even have the opposite effect.’ – Dr Kurt Fickentscher,
University of Bonn.
In actuality, using animals as "models" of human disease has long been a
source of scientific error and a hindrance to advancement in medicine. Animals
are purposely given sickness symptoms, and researchers then attempt to treat
them. The problem is that an animal's ailment is never precisely the same as
the actual human one, and more crucially, the cause is never the same, too. As
a result, a treatment for an animal's disease is unlikely to be effective for
people. Dr Richard Klausner, National Cancer Institute says that ‘The history of
cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse… We have
cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in humans.

Second Argument:
The one of the other reasons to supports the idea of banning animal testing is
that it causes immense amount of suffering to the animals. According to PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), which is the one of the largest
animal rights organizations in the world claims that more than 110 million
animals are killed each year in U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical
training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and
cosmetics testing. The torture on them (animals) has accelerated to an extent
where they are made to breathe deadly gases, while others are made to spend
hours immobile in restraints, while some also have holes drilled into their
heads, their skin burnt off, or their spinal cords crushed. The analogous
argument against is that the advantages to mankind do not justify the high
amount of animal suffering and the number of animals involved.
Third Argument:
What is more, animal testing can be consider as the outdated practice. Hence,
making it a defensible argument to outlaw such practices. Fortunately, there
are a number of alternatives to animal experimentation, some of which have
gained popularity and usage recently. Today’s sophisticated technology has
made it possible that researchers can abandon the cruel process of animal
testing and can rely on advance methods like VITRO Testing, Computer (In
Silico) Modelling and Human-Patient Simulators.
Evidence:
(i) Researchers can more precisely anticipate how medications,
chemicals, cosmetics, and other consumer goods will affect people
thanks to in vitro experiments. In order to allow researchers to test
drugs and toxins without using animals, Harvard's Wyss Institute
developed "organs-on-chips" that include human cells cultured in a
sophisticated system to replicate the form and function of human
organs and organ systems. These chips are more realistic than
outdated animal tests at simulating illnesses, medication reactions,
and human physiology.

(ii) Using in silico, or computational, models for toxicity prediction can

help determine the potential hazards of chemicals and is another
compassionate alternative to animal testing. Among these techniques
are databases for locating toxicological information and quantitative
structure-activity relationships (QSARs), which can pinpoint possible
hazards. Chemical testing is increasingly relying on QSARs.

(iii) High-tech instruments that are startlingly realistic and provide hands-
on medical instruction without harming animals are called human-
patient simulators.
To teach medical professionals how to execute life-saving surgical treatments
on patients with devastating injuries, TraumaMan simulates a breathing,
bleeding human body replete with realistic layers of skin and tissue, ribs, and
internal organs. Its cutting-edge simulator is reusable, less expensive than
workouts using animals, and portable. Research reveal that surgeons who train
on contemporary simulators are just as skilled as those who operate on
animals, if not more so. This is partly because simulators properly simulate
human anatomy whereas dogs and pigs do not.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, in my perspective, prohibiting animal testing is justifiable
because of the disadvantages it is causing to humans and animals themselves.
Even a person with a low IQ would never be subjected to this kind of testing,
so it seems to reason that we should show some respect for animals. The
degree of cruelty involved in animal experimentation is the biggest argument
in favor of this. Animal test subjects may experience protracted, agonizing
deaths and many medications with unpleasant side effects have painful
adverse effects. Regarding testing in non-essential medical domains like
cosmetics, it is certainly unjustified.
Learning for listeners:
When buying cosmetics, customers who wish to stay away from items tested
on animals might opt for a "vegan" or "cruelty-free" label. People may also
express their support for laws like the FDA Modernization Act 2.0, which was
approved by the US Senate earlier this year, that aim to enhance animal care in
the medical sector.
My Quote:
1.
2.