Animal testing: will it actually help our future?

Animal Testing

Many people may be surprised that animal testing has not just started recently, but has been practiced for centuries possibly dating back to the 1600's. This would include dissections as well as treatments to try and understand not only animals- but humans as well.


The Animal Welfare Act was put into effect in 1966 to protect animals in the U.S. They have put into action different licenses to enforce this law, but not all animals are protected under this law. "The legal definition of the word “animal” under the AWA is “any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warmblooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet.” There are exclusions to rats, fish, cattle and many other invertebrates to be used for experimentation. So technically, this act is not very effective because not all animals are fully protected. It would almost seem as though the act is almost promoting experimentation in animals. Though they do allow some animals for testing, there are regulations put into place to maintain the welfare of the animal.

Even though many scientists have found similar correlations between animals and humans, there are many differences in anatomy, biochemistry and physiology. The veterinary students who produced this article are confused as to how animal testing "relates" completely to humans, when humans and animals have so many differences. An example they used to show the differences what using penicillin, it has much different affects on guinea pigs then it would on people. The point these students are trying to make is that there are so many different borders and differences between humans and animals, that it would be hard to test on an animal and somehow pass all of these borders and implications to correlate to a human. Would it just be easier to use science to know how the human body functions, rather then make an animal suffer? To truly understand a species, you would need to use that specific species as an example to get the full picture rather then using other unrelated subspecies.


These students also point out that a fair amount of money being put into these animal experiments is just being wasted because we cannot correlate animals to humans.

For people, we would need to give researchers our consent to be tested or experimented on, so many animal activists argue that the same rule should apply to all animals. This can be a tough argument because it is hard to draw the line to what animals can comprehend, and what their actual rights are.

So my question is this: Do you think that animal testing has been beneficial to the human race? What are your thoughts on animal rights and welfare?

Personally, I believe that animal testing has helped out quite a bit in our past with vaccines and possible transplants, but I don't believe that animal testing should be in our future anymore. I think that we have exhausted our resources and have come to a stopping point to where future research on animals would not benefit the human race. In shorter terms, I believe we have discovered what we discovered and there is not much more that we have available to research in animals, but what we have we have to research in humans. I also believe that animal testing is a mild to excessive (in some cases) of animal abuse. I wouldn't call it humane, nor would I think that the animals enjoy it in any way.