animal expirimentation

Animals Needs to be Heard "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarian." ( McCartney). Not having animal testing would be unrealistic. But minimizing it could cause no harm. Technology gets better and better every day and could save many lives. Laboratory scientist should cut back on animal testing because it is harmful and deadly for them. By not using that many animals for scientific experiments humans could save more lives and not let animal"s lives to go to waste.26 million animals in the United States are used every year to do research. With that many animals being tested on many of them die or are permanently affected with all the dangerous chemicals that get injected into their bodies. Proponents of animal testing say many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals are very difficult to find. Many of these chemicals are never even approved for humans. At the same time many scientist believe that in order to cure diseases like Alzheimer"s a few animals should die if it is for a greater cause. "Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. But we could still achieve great things without animals being affected. Equally important, our bodies and animals bodies are different. Something that can be harmful to a rat might not be for humans. 94% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human clinical trials. "Pick any drug you"ve heard of; it was probably tested on by rats. But there is significant room for improvement," (Ericson). Knowing that animals and humans are not perfectly alike humans should not put that many animals lives at risk. However many scientist believe that with a rats body being only 95% different then human that it is worth risking their life if that means getting closer to making it safer for humans by just adjusting a few things. Because animals and humans are so biologically similar, they are susceptible to many of the same conditions and illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. But even with all those similarities that doesn"t make it okay to risk their lives just for a lipstick. When humans cut back man should not use animals to be tested on for cosmetics but instead diseases but before they should be researched and for sure that it will not cause that animals excruciating pain or there life. At the same time technology gets better. "Advanced computer-modeling techniques can be used instead of animals in disease research, drug development and chemical testing" (Clippinger). This makes cutting back on animal testing that much easier. Also computer-models have already started to save millions of animals suffering from deadly chemicals. Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace animals. Besides technology there are options such as artificial human skin, which is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. But even with all these amazing new discoveries the need for animal experimentation will stand. Laboratory scientist might not be able to stop animal testing 100% but they should try to minimize on the amount of animals used. The world is changing every day, and if the future is getting brighter for humans by cutting back, humans could also make it brighter for all the animals as well.