It is believed by some parts of the population that employing animals to experiment with

medications intended for human use is indispensable, whereas some consider that such
practices as both inhumane and needless. This essay attempts to shed light on both points
of view before concluding that I am an advocate of the former viewpoint.

On the one hand, there are many arguments against testing on animals. To begin with,
people argue that subjecting animals to experimentation for the benefit of humans is morally
wrong. They believe that animals deserve to be treated with respect and that their suffering
should be minimized or eliminated. In addition, some argue that the results obtained from
animal testing may not necessarily be directly applicable to humans. Species’ differences
can affect how drugs interact with different animals, making the extrapolation of results to
humans uncertain or even misleading.

On the other hand, there are a host of compelling reasons as to why I am convinced that
testing on animals brings some benefits. One reason is that testing products, such as
cosmetics, chemicals, and consumer goods, on animals helps ensure their safety before
human exposure which enables the identification of potential hazards, allergens, or toxic
effects. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines
Agency (EMA), often mandate animal testing to ensure the safety and efficacy of
pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Another reason is that animal testing has played a
crucial role in the development and refinement of organ transplantation techniques.
Surgeons are able to understand immunological reactions, identify methods to reduce
rejection, and improve surgical procedures.

In my view, it is reasonable to acknowledge the importance of animals living without human

exploitation. However, I believe that properly utilizing animals for human benefit is not
inherently unethical.