essay on animal testing is unfair

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Is Animal Testing Ever Justified?

The E.P.A. recently said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals. Do you support the decision?

By Natalie Proulx

Find all our Student Opinion questions here.

On Sept. 10, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals, a decision that was hailed by animal rights groups but criticized by environmentalists and researchers who said the practice was necessary to rigorously safeguard human health.

What are your thoughts on animal testing? Do you think it is ever justified? Why or why not?

In “ E.P.A. Says It Will Drastically Reduce Animal Testing ,” Mihir Zaveri, Mariel Padilla and Jaclyn Peiser write about the decision:

The E.P.A. Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency plans to reduce the amount of studies that involve mammal testing by 30 percent by 2025, and to eliminate the studies entirely by 2035, though some may still be approved on a case-by-case basis. The agency said it would also invest $4.25 million in projects at four universities and a medical center that are developing alternate ways of testing chemicals that do not involve animals. “We can protect human health and the environment by using cutting-edge, ethically sound science in our decision-making that efficiently and cost-effectively evaluates potential effects without animal testing,” Mr. Wheeler said in a memo announcing the changes. The E.P.A. has for decades required testing on a variety of animals — including rats, dogs, birds and fish — to gauge their toxicity before the chemicals can be bought, sold or used in the environment.

The article continues:

The practice of testing with animals has long prompted complex debates driven by passionate views on morality and scientific imperative. Reaction to Tuesday’s announcement was no different. “We are really excited as this has been something we’ve wanted for quite some time,” said Kitty Block, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, an animal protection organization. “The alternatives are the future. They’re more efficient and save lives.” Kathleen Conlee, the vice president of animal research issues at the Humane Society, said the E.P.A.’s move is “broad-sweeping and significant.” “This is the first time a government agency has made such a commitment and timelined its specific goals along the way,” Ms. Conlee said. “There’s been a lot of positive action among other federal agencies, but we want to see all government agencies take this step.” Tracey Woodruff, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco’s school of medicine, said current alternatives to animal testing are somewhat useful. But Dr. Woodruff, who worked at the E.P.A. from 1994 to 2007, said only animal testing — a process honed over decades — was robust enough to gauge chemicals’ impacts on people of various ages, genetics and health backgrounds. “I definitely think we should be investing more in this research,” she said, referring to alternative testing. “But it’s really not ready for making decisions yet — at least the way that E.P.A. is making decisions.” Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said she was very concerned by the announcement. Dr. Sass said animals were still necessary to study chronic conditions, like cancer and infertility. Cells in a petri dish cannot yet replace whole living systems, she said. “The E.P.A.’s deadline is arbitrary,” Dr. Sass said. “Our interest isn’t in speed, it’s getting it right. We want proper animal testing because we don’t want harmful chemicals to end up in our food, air and water.”

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Do you support the decision by the E.P.A. to move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals? Or do you think animal testing is still necessary to regulate harmful substances that can have adverse effects on humans?

How important is it to you that the toxicity of chemicals and other environmental contaminants is rigorously studied and regulated? Why? Do you think not testing on animals hinders those efforts?

The Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs are among the government agencies that still rely on animal testing. Do you think animal testing is important in these sectors or any others? Why or why not?

Do you think animal testing is ever justified? If so, what should be the criteria for when, how and on what animals testing is done?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

• Social Issues

Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

Animal testing affects over 100 million animals a year. The main animals that are used are birds, fish, monkeys, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, cats, dogs, frogs, rats, and mice. These animals are used for cosmetic, drug, chemical, and food testing. These animals also struggle in medical training, biology lessons, and interest-guided experiments (“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics”). While animal testing helps researchers develop new treatments and drugs, it needs to be put to an end because it is inhumane, it is inaccurate, and there are other testing methods.

Animal testing needs to be stopped because it is harsh. First animals are put through experiments that torment them. According to Kabene, the animals undergo painful experiments for, “cosmetic and medical tests.” This needs to stop especially the non-medical animal testing that is causing animals to go through extreme amounts of pain. The way that animals suffer when they are not going through tests is also cruel. For example, Jiaa states that animals are, “storage into cramped spaces, and lack of quality/quantity in nutrition.” Even when the animals are not going through painful testing, they receive poor behavior from the people looking after them. Some of the animals that do accommodate either go through life changes that affect them for the rest of their life or the animals will be neutralized. For example, losing their eyesight, muscle coordination, and possibly even their limbs (Jiaa). Those are the results of animal testing. Animal testing is inhumane, and it needs to be stopped.

Furthermore, animal testing gives inaccurate results that are why terminating it needs to occur. According to “Pros & Cons- ProCon.org,” “94% of drugs that pass animal test fail in human trials.” This quote shows that animal testing is ineffective. More than three-fourths of the drugs that worked in animals were unsuccessful in the human trials. That makes animal testing highly imprecise. The reason this happens is that humans and animals have different biological make-ups. They have cellular, metabolic, and anatomic differences. That makes animals inadequate test subjects for humans. Also, animal testing could mislead scientists to overlook cures and treatments (“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org”). Since animal testing gives ineffective results for human experiments it needs to be stopped.       

Animal testing can be stopped because there are other alternatives to it. For example, Curtis states that, “to conduct tests on ingredients and finished products in humans under critical observation.” The quote is saying that human test subjects could be used instead of animals. Human volunteers are available for specific experiments. The human test subjects have been way more accurate than animal test subjects could ever be. Another alternative is vitro testing, which are tests done in a petri dish of human cells (“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org”). This alternative is a crucial advancement for the stopping of animal testing. The reason why is that no harm to humans or animals would be done in this alternative. Human volunteers and vitro testing are the two best alternatives to animal testing. Both would be better than animal testing because these alternatives can give more accurate results. Which would benefit humans more than testing on animals. Finding alternatives to animal testing is a major step to ending animal testing. 

There are some positives to animal testing, but the negatives far outweigh the positives. For example, it helps provide product safety for humans. It slims the chances of humans being affected by certain everyday products like cosmetics. For instance, skin irritation and even death during the human testing phase. Except animal testing would not help with this because animals have different skin and different biological make-ups than humans. Which would lead to inaccurate results, and nobody could be sure how it would genuinely affect humans till it is tested on humans. Another result of animal testing is medical advancement. Specifically, vaccines and medical procedures like open-heart surgery. Some vaccines that were tested on animals and have worked in the human trials are hepatitis B and polio. Also, by testing on animals, veterinary medicine has benefited. Doing experiments on animals gives researchers a promising idea of how that experiment is going to affect the human body (Jiaa). Except, animal testing is inaccurate and, it is hard to see what will happen until testing is done on humans.  Although animal testing is harmful and inhumane to animals there are some positives. However, there are more negatives to animal testing than there are positives.

In conclusion, animal testing needs to come to an end. First, animal testing is inhumane. It is cruel because the animals are constantly getting mistreated. Second, many of the test results are inaccurate and fail in human trials. Third, there are other alternatives to animal testing like human volunteers and vitro testing. Lastly, there are some positives to animal testing like product safety and medical improvement. Except there are more negatives to animal testing than positives and it must be stopped. Animal testing needs to be put to an end. 

Works cited

“Animal Testing Facts and Statistics.” PETA, 6 Oct. 2021, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/. 

Curtis, Gary L. "An alternative to animal testing." Drug & Cosmetic Industry, vol. 150, no. 4, 

Apr. 1992, pp. 46+. Gale Academic OneFile Select, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A12092354/GPS?u=tonk7465&sid=bookmark-GPS&xid=45eab0ca. Accessed 2 Nov. 2021.

Jiaa, Sherry. “The Debate on Animal Experimentation.” Sather Health, 29 Dec. 2017, https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sather/the-debate-on-animal-experimentation/. 

Kabene, Stefane, and Said Baadel. “Bioethics: A Look at Animal Testing in Medicine and Cosmetics in the UK.” Journal of Medical Ethics & History of Medicine, vol. 12, no. 1, Feb. 2019, pp. 1–11. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=145249939&site=ehost-live

“Pros & Cons - ProCon.org.” Animal Testing, 10 June 2020, animal-testing.procon.org/.

Related Samples

• LGBT Youth in Schools: Risk Factors and Support
• Research Paper about Poverty: Man-Made Disaster
• Homophobia and Transphobia as a Social Issues
• Essay Sample about The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade
• Sexual Assaults in Army Essay Sample
• Essay On Abortion A Woman's Right
• Teenage Suicide Essay Example
• Female Representation in Pop Culture Media (Free Essay Example)
• Harriet Tubman Essay Example
• Essay Sample on Police Brutality

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

• About Animal Testing /
• current page Arguments against animal testing

Arguments against animal testing

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences.

It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans.  Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.

Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments.

The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.

Unreliable animal testing

• 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work.
• Urology drugs have the lowest success rate (only 4% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by heart drugs (5% success rate), cancer drugs (5% success rate) and neurology drugs (6% success rate).
• Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans.
• A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.
• Another study showed that over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been “successful” in animal tests, but of the approximately 10% that progressed to human trials, none worked sufficiently well in humans.
• One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently, we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs ’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 “breakthroughs” had been realised in humans, and that was subject to several caveats.

Dangerous animal testing

• Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 140,000 heart attacks and strokes and 60,000 deaths worldwide.
• Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK, in 2006 suffered a severe immune reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.
• A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans.
• A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first.

Animals are different

• Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia.
• An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA.
• The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) is resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.
• Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in humans but toxic to dogs.
• Aspirin is toxic to many animals and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING

Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Alternatives to animal testing

subtitle: Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Science Page

Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Our History

subtitle: Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

What is animal testing?

subtitle: Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Types of animal testing

subtitle: Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Facts and figures on animal testing

subtitle: Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Science Publications

Law & Policy Policy

Resources for Journalists

• Food & Farming Media Network
• How to Pitch Us
• Freelance Charter
• Work With Us

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

Animals Testing, Exposed: Millions of Animals Suffer in Labs Every Year

Through animal testing, researchers try and often fail to determine if the products are safe for humans by examining their effects on animals.

Explainer • Animal Testing • Policy

Words by Grace Hussain

A rat sits alone in a cage merely one-third of a foot in size. He’s been given cancer so that a new drug can be trialed on his body. His life will be a short one and will end when his body can no longer handle the disease. The drug that he sacrificed his life to test will likely fail to move forward to the next phase of trials, making his suffering effectively meaningless. Unfortunately, he is but one of the millions of animals that suffer in labs around the world every year. 

What Is Animal Testing?

Animal testing is generally performed in the production of either cosmetics or medicine. The aim is to help establish whether these products are safe for humans, by examining their effects on animals.

Cosmetic Testing

Whether to test cosmetics and other beauty products on animals is left up to the manufacturer in the United States, and is not required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act . The only country that does require animal testing for some cosmetic products is China, where particular products such as hair dye and sunscreen must be tested on animals if being marketed in the country. 

Testing for Medicine

Animal testing for medical purposes takes place at virtually every research university in the United States. Animals are used as subjects prior to new medications or procedures being tested in people, during the preclinical phase of drug development. 

The History of Animal Testing

Records of using animal models for research date back to early Greek scientists including Aristotle, who performed experiments on animals. Ibn Zuhr, an Arab physician, is the first known to have used animal models in experimental surgical procedures prior to attempting the surgeries on humans, in the 12th century. 

In more recent years, the use of animals for medical research has been a topic of much debate. This debate has led to the passage of laws regulating animal use in a number of countries including Japan, New Zealand, and Brazil. In the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966 following the kidnapping of Pepper, a family’s much-loved dalmatian, who ended up being used for experimentation before being euthanized. 

What Types of Animals Are Used? 

Different animals are used for different types of experiments, but some of the most frequently used animals globally are rats, mice, birds, fish, cats, dogs, nonhuman primates, and farmed animals. 

Invertebrates

When it comes to research, invertebrates are considered to have several benefits over vertebrates. The first of these is that regulations pertaining to welfare and care standards often do not apply to invertebrates, meaning that researchers are able to save time and resources by avoiding lengthy paperwork. Invertebrates are also abundant and have simpler anatomies than vertebrates, making them easier to use en masse for some projects. The housing requirements of invertebrates are also lower, enabling researchers to keep dozens, hundreds, or thousands together in one enclosure. The simplicity of invertebrates’ biological makeup can also be a disadvantage for researchers, however, when testing certain new drugs. 

Vertebrates

Using vertebrates in research is a primary method by which scientists test new drugs and procedures prior to applying them to human subjects. Many vertebrates in the United States—such as dogs, cats, and primates—have their welfare protected, at least partially, by the Animal Welfare Act . The act outlines that several species are excluded from protection, including rats and mice, which are the most commonly used vertebrates, though there are further protections outlined in federal regulations for any research facilities receiving federal funding, and this includes universities. 

What Are Laboratories Like? 

This video tour of a research facility shows the stark reality for animals raised for life in a lab. Though the dogs in the facility are let outside twice a day, their kennels are visibly barren with no bed and only one toy each. The rats and mice exist in minuscule enclosures, though the mice do at least enjoy the company of other mice. Like the dogs, the pigs are housed in barren enclosures with next to no mental stimulation besides other pigs, despite the high intelligence of the species. 

What’s Wrong With Animal Testing?  

How many animals die from animal testing every year .

There is no way of being sure precisely how many animals are used for testing each year around the world, as most countries do not require records to be kept of every animal used. Estimates suggest that 115 million animals or more are used every year. Rehoming animals following their use as lab animals is increasing in popularity with labs, yet due to the dangerous nature of testing many animals don’t have this option. Many animals are exposed to toxic chemicals and diseases, have their bodies altered, have their tissue analyzed following their euthanasia as part of a study, or are otherwise unfit to be rehomed following their use as test subjects. 

Is Animal Testing Cruel? 

In many laboratory settings performing animal research, the animals do suffer, meaning that animal testing can by definition be cruel. Laboratories attempt to mitigate this suffering with the use of pain medications, sedation, and anesthesia. Another mitigation technique employed is that researchers set a limit to the level of suffering animal subjects will endure prior to euthanasia. Once an animal reaches the predetermined level of suffering the animals will be humanely euthanized. 

Is Animal Testing Painful? 

Researchers that employ animal testing take measures to mitigate suffering in the animals on which they experiment. However, there are some experiments, such as pain studies, in which these methods of mitigation cannot be effectively applied. 

Is Animal Testing Archaic? 

There are several alternative ways of evaluating the effectiveness of new drugs and procedures that do not involve animals. The existence of these alternatives makes using animals in testing to meet the goals of people even more ethically problematic. 

Is Animal Testing Wasteful? 

The results of studies on animals are of limited use in assessing the value of health treatments for humans, and the vast majority of drugs tested on animals prove to be ineffective for treating human disease. This means millions of dollars are currently wasted on testing drugs that will end up being proven useless. 

Are Animal Test Results Reliable?  

Despite the millions of animal lives that are lost every year in support of scientific research, the results of these experiments often do not translate reliably to human subjects. Not only do 90 percent of drugs that are successful in animal trials fail when applied to human volunteers, there is also a high likelihood that many drugs that fail during animal trials would have been successful in treating human disease. 

Is Animal Testing Illegal? 

More than 40 countries, including Australia, Mexico, and Norway limit or outright ban animal testing for cosmetics. In the U.S., seven states including Hawai’i, Maryland, and Nevada also ban cosmetic animal testing. Animal testing in biomedical research is standard practice for researchers across the globe.  

Regulations and Laws

Specific regulations and laws pertaining to animal testing differ from country to country. A similarity among several countries is that they work to align with the 3 Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement). That is to say that most laws, guidelines, and regulations encourage researchers to replace animal subjects with alternative models when applicable, reduce the number of animals being used for a study, and refine their methods to reduce suffering. 

Should Animal Testing Be Banned?

Animal testing for cosmetic purposes has already been banned in several countries, but testing on animals in biomedical research is still largely standard practice. Given the ineffectiveness of animal testing, the financially wasteful nature of the practice, and the increase in alternative research options, the scientific community should seek to continuously reduce the number of animals used for research in alignment with the 3R’s. 

Alternatives to Animal Testing

There are several alternatives to animal testing that researchers can employ in place of using animal subjects. 

In Vitro Testing

In vitro testing is done outside of a living organism on cells, tissues, or organs. Research has suggested that in vitro testing may be more effective than animal testing at providing rapid, precise, and relevant results in certain cases. 

Computer Modeling

Computer models have been shown to be as or more effective than animal models in some experimental circumstances. 

Research Using Human Volunteers

Using human volunteers in the initial stages of research must be done with caution. There are a number of examples of communities being taken advantage of in medical research. Globalization of human-subject research has led to pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions recruiting volunteers from lower-income countries at an increasing rate. With this trend comes ethical concerns about whether the tested drugs and procedures will actually benefit the communities on which they are being tested, or if the researchers are taking advantage of these communities. 

Human Tissues

Human tissue can be donated via procedures such as biopsies, transplants, and cosmetic surgery for use in labs. Tissue can also be collected post-mortem for use in clinical trials. 

Animal Testing Facts and Statistics

• Rodents make up 95 percent of animals needed for research in the United States, and they are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act.
• Rats enjoy being tickled, and there is a certification available for those interested in learning how to appropriately tickle rats.
• The use of nonrodent animals has been declining consistently since the 1980s.

How Can We Help Stop Animal Testing? 

One of the best ways to stop animal testing for cosmetic purposes is to purchase cruelty-free products . These products have not been tested on animals and thus do not contribute to animal suffering in labs. 

A bill recently introduced to Congress ( HR 1744-Human Research and Testing Act of 2021 ) could be the first step in effectively reducing the number of animals suffering because of animal testing in the United States. Showing support for the bill by contacting legislators could help this bill succeed. 

What’s Next

Animals have suffered for the sake of human invention for long enough. It is time that the scientific community began the process of phasing out animal testing. Using animals as subjects has proven repeatedly to be ineffective and financially wasteful. Every animal deserves better than a life spent in a lab suffering from a human-inflicted illness.

Independent Journalism Needs You

Grace covers farming and agricultural policy. Her reporting has been published in Truthdig and the Good Men Project. She holds her MS in Animals and Public Policy from Tufts University.

Beagles Are Bred by the Thousands on Factory Farms, and It’s Perfectly Legal

Justice • 4 min read

More Law & Policy

New Supreme Court Case Threatens Legal Protections for Animals

Law & Policy • 7 min read

‘The Smell of Money’ Film Is Bringing Together Environmental and Food Justice Advocates

A new documentary chronicles the damage hog farm pollution has caused communities of Eastern North Carolina.

Justice • 5 min read

5 Ways Taxpayers Bail Out Factory Farms

The way we produce meat and dairy is responsible for all sorts of damage, and taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Law & Policy • 6 min read

New Climate Research Shows How Plants and Animals Face New Pressures in a Warming World

Climate • 6 min read

Why Plant-Based Burgers at Fast Food Chains Get So… Mushy

Diet • 8 min read

How Much Protein You Need to Be Healthy, Explained

Diet • 10 min read

Fish Feel Pain, Science Shows — But Humans Are Reluctant To Believe It

Science • 9 min read

Most Read Today

The failures of animal testing

Katy taylor, creative commons 4.0.

Exaggerating the importance and value of animal research creates a false sense of confidence in the use of animal testing among the public and medical professionals.

We have all seen it. A front-page headline from a tabloid newspaper heralding a 'breakthrough' in the fight against a major disease. A common thread connects many of these reported developments - whether that be cancer or Alzheimer’s. 

Namely, the false assumption that because of testing on animals in laboratories there have been new solutions that will revolutionise outcomes for human health.   

The promise of clinical efficacy through animal testing is dangerous. It is often cited as the rationale behind the need to continue animal testing on a mass scale and is not always based on evidence.

Objectively, those who support the use of animal testing in medical research, do so on the basis that it is furthering advances in the treatment of humans.

However, the widely reported links between animal testing and advances in human medicine by the UK press have recently been found to contain widespread inaccuracies and exaggerations.

In research published in BMJ Open Science, it was shown that the majority of 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK national print media inflated the value or success of animal testing.

In a study by Cruelty Free International, out of 27 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK media, twenty failed outright to translate into any human relevant benefit and only one resulted in clinical use.

The findings highlight that reports of animal research leading to human-relevant breakthroughs should be viewed with caution. The ramifications of misleading news are severe, they not only lead to a crisis in confidence relating to medical research more broadly but continue to propagate the notion that animals need to be subjected to extreme cruelty for science to progress.

Exaggerating the importance and value of animal research creates a false sense of confidence in the use of animal testing among the public and medical professionals. This has serious implications for government policies, industry regulators, funding and public opinion.

It is important that the media are better educated about the limits and reality of animal research, so that they do not inflate its value, encouraging them to highlight the more effective clinical research being conducted using animal-free methods and report on the very real funding and regulatory barriers that human-relevant research currently faces.

A transition towards appropriate reporting of the value and successes of animal testing could have a dramatic impact on animal protection worldwide. Sadly, the most recent statistics show that between 2015 and 2017, the UK conducted the highest number of animal experiments in Europe.

In 2019, 3.4 million animal experiments were completed in the UK. This is in direct contrast to public opinion which increasingly opposes animal research.

A 2019 Ipsos MORI report revealed a growing shift in attitudes towards animal experiments in the UK with two thirds of those surveyed concerned about the use of animals in research, and more people disagreeing with the use of dogs (86 percent against), monkeys (86 percent against) and pigs (79 percent against) in tests, even if it benefits human health.

Under UK and EU regulation, animal testing should not be authorised or conducted if another alternative approach or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought is recognised. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case, with a pertinent example being that of botox testing. 

Batch tests for the potency of vials of botulinum toxin products sold to beauty clinics continue to use mice, even though there is a recognised cell-based test that could and should be used in their place.

In these tests, mice are injected with the toxin and becoming increasingly paralysed over a period of three days. Half of the mice will die from the tests, those who survive will be killed anyway.

Not only would replacing animal tests with humane, human-relevant methods provide a great leap forward in the fight for animal rights, but animal-free methods are often cheaper, faster and more accurate than the animal tests they replace.

The use of human-relevant methods could therefore also lead to huge gains for both human health and the environment.

To achieve more effective testing methods and increased animal protection it is important that we address the information being disseminated on the topic.

Headlines sharing breakthroughs based on animal tests should be treated with extreme caution; the reliance of governments on animal testing will only begin to wane when its value is accurately reported in the media and is balanced against the public’s very real desire to protect animals from suffering.

This Author

Dr Katy Taylor is the Director of Science and Regulatory Affairs of Cruelty Free International.

Donate to The Ecologist and support high impact environmental journalism and analysis.

The failure of animal testing

Media speculation over Gatwick disruption

Badger Cull has brought out the best of British compassion

More from this author.

• Editors’ Picks
• Ecologist Writers' Fund
• Biodiversity
• Climate Breakdown
• Economics and policy
• Food and Farming
• Brendan Montague
• Yasmin Dahnoun
• Catherine Early
• Simon Pirani
• Gareth Dale
• Marianne Brown
• Resurgence & Ecologist
• Ecologist recycled
• Megamorphosis

• Close Menu Search
• Full Issues
• pollsarchive
• Sports Center
• Yop Poll Archive

The Science Survey

• The Problem With Your Attention Span
• Sam Altman’s Tumultuous Journey Through OpenAI
• The Startup Surge: Will the Wave of Business Creation Last?
• How ‘The Hunger Games’ Transcends Make-Believe
• Mosquitos: A Growing Threat
• Cheating Allegations Surface in High Level Chess
• The Science Behind Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)
• From Pig to Human: The Wonders of Xenotransplantation
• Liv’s Battle With Sanfilippo Syndrome
• Nihilism: The Final Defeat of Humanity
• Separating the Art From the Artist
• From Tiger Princess to Therapist: The Change in How We View Jobs as Kids and Adolescents

The Unseen Suffering in Animal Testing

When people hear ‘animal testing,’ some picture harmless scenarios like applying makeup to our furry friends, while others associate it with riskier tests, such as injecting chemicals into animals. However, the reality of animal testing goes beyond these initial impressions. 

Animal experimentation is a procedure performed on living animals to test the safety of consumer goods and to study product development. Many people in the media think animal testing allows scientists to learn more about humans, ensure the safety of treatments for illnesses and products. Although this might sound like it is benefiting us, it is ultimately causing us more harm than good. As a practice often viewed as essential for product safety and medical progress, animal experimentation is commonly misunderstood.

Animals used in experiments can experience psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and behavioral abnormalities. This is caused by the stress of being confined to small cages, the lack of social interaction, and the fear and uncertainty associated with being used in experiments. Animals used for experiments are merely seen as test subjects, and many are ultimately euthanized either because the experiment is over or because they have become too sick or injured to continue. According to PETA , “Animals in laboratories are treated like disposable laboratory equipment, rather than the thinking, feeling beings they are. Every year, more than 100 million animals are tormented and killed in U.S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing; for medical training; for biology lessons; and for curiosity-driven research.” The emotional and physical pain experienced by laboratory animals, as described by PETA, points out the ethical problem that comes from their use. 

It is clear that scientific research has often fallen short in terms of minimizing pain and suffering in animals. This is primarily because scientists are not legally obligated to do so. Animals subjected to experimentation continue to endure excruciating pain, as there is currently no comprehensive U.S. legislation explicitly prohibiting them from being used in experiments. Although there is the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) , it has many flaws, and animal advocates believe it is not as effective as it should be. The AWA grants experimenters the authority to carry out procedures that involve burning, starvation, decapitation, and other forms of harm to animals.

So, can we get a good result from two different anatomies? Not at all. In one experiment , after receiving a drug injection, human volunteers all experienced a severe, fatal reaction that resulted in organ failure. However, mice, rabbits, and rats who received the same drug by injection showed no negative side effects. Such unreliable research and testing does not result in a human cure or treatment.

Humans and animals differ too much from one another for results to be consistent, reliable, and dependable. Animals absorb, metabolize, and eliminate substances differently than humans do; therefore, animals would react differently to drugs than humans do. Aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys. But it simultaneously helps us relieve pain and reduce the risk of serious problems like heart attacks and strokes. This situation is also similar to our perception of chocolate. We see chocolate as a delightful treat, whereas for dogs, consuming chocolate can be life-threatening. 

Reactions to the exposure of these products vary among species, making it difficult to extract data from animal tests and apply them to situations in which humans are exposed. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration , 92% of drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animals fail in human trials. To ensure safer and more successful medicines for humans in the future, alternative techniques should be required.

As many say, up to an extent, it is necessary to experiment on animals for humanity. A Bronx Science student (who wishes to stay anonymous) has stated, “Taking a scientific approach, it is absolutely necessary. For centuries, humans have used rats and various smaller animals to test out chemical, physiological, and psychological effects that can happen to humans. Sure it is unethical, but without animal testing, these ‘research’ and ‘tests’ will be done on humans instead, which is much more unethical.” The argument that animal testing is an unavoidable necessity for scientific research and expansion must be critically examined. While historically it has been used to assess chemical, physiological, and psychological effects to protect humans, it is essential to address the ethical concerns it raises. The assertion that it is unethical but necessary does not sufficiently resolve the moral dilemma at its core. 

Moreover, the assumption that animal testing is the sole reliable method for assessing the effects of substances on humans is increasingly discredited. The suggestion that without animal testing, human experimentation would be the only option is invalid, as there are safer and more effective options. While it is widely acknowledged that conducting tests on humans is ethically problematic, it’s important to note some willingly volunteer for such testing. This approach offers significant advantages in terms of cost-efficiency, time, and accuracy, making it a promising avenue for scientific research and experimentation.

As we delve into the realm of animal welfare and the pursuit of alternatives to animal testing, it is essential to acknowledge the personal perspectives that drive our dedication to this cause. One such perspective is captured by an advocate in AAVS , Nicole Green. Nicole Green is committed to promoting awareness and humane education. She said, “As a person who cares about animals, I feel that animals deserve to live their lives as the unique individuals they are, free from pain and exploitation. This is why I dedicate my life to educating the public on this very important issue.” This heartfelt sentiment shows the profound commitment many individuals share in their tireless efforts to champion the rights and well-being of animals. 

Alternatives to animal testing are increasingly being explored and adopted as more ethical, efficient, and scientifically robust methods to assess the safety and efficacy of products and substances. Yet bigger corporations do not want to use animals because there are no better options as animal experimentation is the “gold standard.” 

One key approach is in vitro testing , which uses human cell cultures and tissue models to mimic biological processes, offering a more accurate representation of human responses. Advanced computer modeling and simulation techniques, known as in silico methods , enable the prediction of toxicological outcomes and drug interactions without actual animal experimentation. Microdosing , in which minimal amounts of a substance are administered to humans to study its effects, is gaining popularity for its potential to replace animal testing in pharmaceutical research. Organ-on-a-chip technology allows the creation of micro-scale systems that replicate the functions of entire organs, providing a platform for testing drug responses and toxicity. 

Collectively, these alternatives not only reduce ethical concerns surrounding animal testing but also offer more precise and human-relevant results, ultimately improving the safety and effectiveness of products and medicines.

The practice of animal testing, often misunderstood and surrounded by ethical dilemmas, raises critical questions about its necessity and implications. In fact, it’s worth noting that current limited legal protections leave countless creatures vulnerable to unending pain, distress, and suffering. Animal testing laws contain such large loopholes that experimenters can get away with just about anything. As advocates for both human and animal welfare, shouldn’t we collectively seek a more compassionate and scientifically stronger path forward?

“As a person who cares about animals, I feel that animals deserve to live their lives as the unique individuals they are, free from pain and exploitation. This is why I dedicate my life to educating the public on this very important issue,” said Nicole Green, an advocate in AAVS.

• advocacy for animal welfare
• alternatives to animal testing
• animal advocacy
• animal rights activism
• animal suffering prevention
• animal testing
• animal testing alternatives
• animal testing opposition
• animal-free research
• cruelty-free testing
• ethical concerns
• humane research
• leaping bunny
• non-animal testing methods
• reduction of animal experiments

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Testing — Animal Testing: A Necessary Evil?

Animal Testing: a Necessary Evil?

• Categories: Animal Testing

About this sample

Words: 860 |

Published: Jan 30, 2024

Words: 860 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, argument 1: animal testing is necessary for scientific and medical advancement., argument 2: animal testing causes unnecessary harm and suffering to animals., argument 3: animal testing may not accurately predict human outcomes..

• Goldberg, A., & Prescott, J. (2002). Animal experimentation: A moral issue? John Wiley & Sons.
• Perel, P., Roberts, I., Sena, E., Wheble, P., Briscoe, C., & Sandercock, P. (2007). Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ, 334(7586), 197.
• Barrett, R. (2011). Alternatives to animal testing: new solutions to meet scientific and regulatory needs. Drug discovery today, 16(3), 122-126.
• Arluke, A. (2009). The ethics of animal research: Exploring the controversy. Routledge.
• Drug Discovery News. (2014). Big pharma invests in non-animal alternatives. Accessed on September 17, 2021, from http://www.ddnonline.com/ .
• Speirs, C. K., & Hester, P. Y. (2012). Animal welfare concerns and knowledge of the research process among university undergraduates. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 253-266.
• Miranda, C. C., Castro, R. D., Borges, M. G., Maximiano, M. R., Gava, R., Pereira, C. A., & Simao, A. M. (2020). Human-on-a-chip: State-of-the-art and future directions. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 20(12), 1433-1445.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1634 words

1 pages / 603 words

1 pages / 599 words

2 pages / 1134 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Testing

Good morning. I am here today to convince you all to oppose, stop, and disengage from the cruel and unnecessary animal testing.Did you know that the lipstick, the eye shadow and the mascara we use to make ourselves look more [...]

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically [...]

Imagine a world where innocent creatures are subjected to painful experiments in the name of scientific progress. This cruel reality is not a dystopian fiction, but rather a harsh truth that exists in our society. Animal testing [...]

From rabbits to dogs, animals are commonly used in research studies as test subjects to advance scientific knowledge and develop new drugs. However, the ethical implications of using animals in research cannot be ignored. While [...]

Introduction to the issue of animal testing in the cosmetic industry The ethical concerns surrounding animal testing Arguments in favor of animal testing, including potential medical advancements [...]

Since long time ago animals starting from mice to cows have been used for research. There are lots of examples of testing these or that phenomena on animals. But is it correct? Is it what a human should do? And what well-known [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research

Hope r. ferdowsian.

1 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C., United States of America

2 Department of Medicine, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., United States of America

Conceived and designed the experiments: HRF NB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: HRF NB. Wrote the paper: HRF NB.

In 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch published the seminal book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which emphasized r eduction, r efinement, and r eplacement of animal use, principles which have since been referred to as the “3 Rs”. These principles encouraged researchers to work to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible. Despite the attention brought to this issue by Russell and Burch and since, the number of animals used in research and testing has continued to increase, raising serious ethical and scientific issues. Further, while the “3 Rs” capture crucially important concepts, they do not adequately reflect the substantial developments in our new knowledge about the cognitive and emotional capabilities of animals, the individual interests of animals, or an updated understanding of potential harms associated with animal research. This Overview provides a brief summary of the ethical and scientific considerations regarding the use of animals in research and testing, and accompanies a Collection entitled Animals, Research, and Alternatives: Measuring Progress 50 Years Later , which aims to spur ethical and scientific advancement.

Introduction

One of the most influential attempts to examine and affect the use of animals in research can be traced back to1959, with the publication of The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique [1] . William Russell and Rex Burch published this seminal book in response to marked growth in medical and veterinary research and the concomitant increase in the numbers of animals used. Russell and Burch's text emphasized r eduction, r efinement, and r eplacement of animal use, principles which have since been referred to as the “3 Rs”. These principles encouraged researchers to work to reduce the number of animals used in experiments to the minimum considered necessary, refine or limit the pain and distress to which animals are exposed, and replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives when possible.

Despite the attention brought to this issue by Russell and Burch, the number of animals used in research and testing has continued to increase. Recent estimates suggest that at least 100 million animals are used each year worldwide [2] . However, this is likely an underestimate, and it is impossible to accurately quantify the number of animals used in or for experimentation. Full reporting of all animal use is not required or made public in most countries. Nevertheless, based on available information, it is clear that the number of animals used in research has not significantly declined over the past several decades.

The “3 Rs” serve as the cornerstone for current animal research guidelines, but questions remain about the adequacy of existing guidelines and whether researchers, review boards, and funders have fully and adequately implemented the “3 Rs”. Further, while the “3 Rs” capture crucially important concepts, they do not adequately reflect the substantial developments in our new knowledge about the cognitive and emotional capabilities of animals; an updated understanding of the harms inherent in animal research; and the changing cultural perspectives about the place of animals in society [3] , [4] . In addition, serious questions have been raised about the effectiveness of animal testing and research in predicting anticipated outcomes [5] – [13] .

In August 2010, the Georgetown University Kennedy Institute of Ethics, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, the Institute for In Vitro Sciences, The George Washington University, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine jointly held a two day multi-disciplinary, international conference in Washington, DC, to address the scientific, legal, and political opportunities and challenges to implementing alternatives to animal research. This two-day symposium aimed to advance the study of the ethical and scientific issues surrounding the use of animals in testing and research, with particular emphasis on the adequacy of current protections and the promise and challenges of developing alternatives to the use of animals in basic research, pharmaceutical research and development, and regulatory toxicology. Speakers who contributed to the conference reviewed and contributed new knowledge regarding the cognitive and affective capabilities of animals, revealed through ethology, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, and related disciplines. Speakers also explored the dimensions of harm associated with animal research, touching on the ethical implications regarding the use of animals in research. Finally, several contributors presented the latest scientific advances in developing alternatives to the use of animals in pharmaceutical research and development and regulatory toxicity testing.

This Collection combines some papers that were written following this conference with an aim to highlight relevant progress and research. This Overview provides a brief summary of the ethical and scientific considerations regarding the use of animals in research and testing, some of which are highlighted in the accompanying Collection.

Analysis and Discussion

Ethical considerations and advances in the understanding of animal cognition.

Apprehension around burgeoning medical research in the late 1800s and the first half of the 20 th century sparked concerns over the use of humans and animals in research [14] , [15] . Suspicions around the use of humans were deepened with the revelation of several exploitive research projects, including a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners by the Nazi German regime during World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis study. These abuses served as the impetus for the establishment of the Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, and the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1974) and the resulting Belmont Report [16] – [18] . Today, these guidelines provide a platform for the protection of human research subjects, including the principles of respect, beneficence, and justice, as well as special protections for vulnerable populations.

Laws to protect animals in research have also been established. The British Parliament passed the first set of protections for animals in 1876, with the Cruelty to Animals Act [19] . Approximately ninety years later, the U.S. adopted regulations for animals used in research, with the passage of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 [20] . Subsequent national and international laws and guidelines have provided basic protections, but there are some significant inconsistencies among current regulations [21] . For example, the U.S. Animal Welfare Act excludes purpose-bred birds, rats, or mice, which comprise more than 90% of animals used in research [20] . In contrast, certain dogs and cats have received special attention and protections. Whereas the U.S. Animal Welfare Act excludes birds, rats and mice, the U.S. guidelines overseeing research conducted with federal funding includes protections for all vertebrates [22] , [23] . The lack of consistency is further illustrated by the “U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training” which stress compliance with the U.S. Animal Welfare Act and “other applicable Federal laws, guidelines, and policies” [24] .

While strides have been made in the protection of both human and animal research subjects, the nature of these protections is markedly different. Human research protections emphasize specific principles aimed at protecting the interests of individuals and populations, sometimes to the detriment of the scientific question. This differs significantly from animal research guidelines, where the importance of the scientific question being researched commonly takes precedence over the interests of individual animals. Although scientists and ethicists have published numerous articles relevant to the ethics of animal research, current animal research guidelines do not articulate the rationale for the central differences between human and animal research guidelines. Currently, the majority of guidelines operate on the presumption that animal research should proceed based on broad, perceived benefits to humans. These guidelines are generally permissive of animal research independent of the costs to the individual animal as long as benefits seem achievable.

The concept of costs to individual animals can be further examined through the growing body of research on animal emotion and cognition. Studies published in the last few decades have dramatically increased our understanding of animal sentience, suggesting that animals' potential for experiencing harm is greater than has been appreciated and that current protections need to be reconsidered. It is now widely acknowledged by scientists and ethicists that animals can experience pain and distress [25] – [29] . Potential causes of harm include invasive procedures, disease, and deprivation of basic physiological needs. Other sources of harm for many animals include social deprivation and loss of the ability to fulfill natural behaviors, among other factors. Numerous studies have demonstrated that, even in response to gentle handling, animals can show marked changes in physiological and hormonal markers of stress [30] .

Although pain and suffering are subjective experiences, studies from multiple disciplines provide objective evidence of animals' abilities to experience pain. Animals demonstrate coordinated responses to pain and many emotional states that are similar to those exhibited by humans [25] , [26] . Animals share genetic, neuroanatomical, and physiological similarities with humans, and many animals express pain in ways similar to humans. Animals also share similarities with humans in genetic, developmental, and environmental risk factors for psychopathology [25] , [26] . For example, fear operates in a less organized subcortical neural circuit than pain, and it has been described in a wide variety of species [31] . More complex markers of psychological distress have also been described in animals. Varying forms of depression have been repeatedly reported in animals, including nonhuman primates, dogs, pigs, cats, birds and rodents, among others [32] – [34] . Anxiety disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, have been described in animals including chimpanzees and elephants [35] , [36] , [37] .

In addition to the capacity to experience physical and psychological pain or distress, animals also display many language-like abilities, complex problem-solving skills, tool related cognition and pleasure-seeking, with empathy and self-awareness also suggested by some research. [38] – [44] . Play behavior, an indicator of pleasure, is widespread in mammals, and has also been described in birds [45] , [46] . Behavior suggestive of play has been observed in other taxa, including reptiles, fishes and cephalopods [43] . Self-awareness, assessed through mirror self-recognition, has been reported for chimpanzees and other great apes, magpies, and some cetaceans. More recent studies have shown that crows are capable of creating and using tools that require access to episodic-like memory formation and retrieval [47] . These findings suggest that crows and related species display evidence of causal reasoning, flexible learning strategies, imagination and prospection, similar to findings in great apes. These findings also challenge our assumptions about species similarities and differences and their relevance in solving ethical dilemmas regarding the use of animals in research.

Predictive Value of Animal Data and the Impact of Technical Innovations on Animal Use

In the last decade, concerns have mounted about how relevant animal experiments are to human health outcomes. Several papers have examined the concordance between animal and human data, demonstrating that findings in animals were not reliably replicated in human clinical research [5] – [13] . Recent systematic reviews of treatments for various clinical conditions demonstrated that animal studies have been poorly predictive of human outcomes in the fields of neurology and vascular disease, among others [7] , [48] . These reviews have raised questions about whether human diseases inflicted upon animals sufficiently mimic the disease processes and treatment responses seen in humans.

The value of animal use for predicting human outcomes has also been questioned in the regulatory toxicology field, which relies on a codified set of highly standardized animal experiments for assessing various types of toxicity. Despite serious shortcomings for many of these assays, most of which are 50 to 60 years old, the field has been slow to adopt newer methods. The year 2007 marked a turning point in the toxicology field, with publication of a landmark report by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC), highlighting the need to embrace in vitro and computational methods in order to obtain data that more accurately predicts toxic effects in humans. The report, “Toxicity Testing in the 21 st Century: A Vision and a Strategy,” was commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, partially due to the recognition of weaknesses in existing approaches to toxicity testing [49] . The NRC vision calls for a shift away from animal use in chemical testing toward computational models and high-throughput and high-content in vitro methods. The report emphasized that these methods can provide more predictive data, more quickly and affordably than traditional in vivo methods. Subsequently published articles address the implementation of this vision for improving the current system of chemical testing and assessment [50] , [51] .

While a sea change is underway in regulatory toxicology, there has been much less dialogue surrounding the replacement of animals in research, despite the fact that far more animals are used in basic and applied research than in regulatory toxicology. The use of animals in research is inherently more difficult to approach systematically because research questions are much more diverse and less proscribed than in regulatory toxicology [52] . Because researchers often use very specialized assays and systems to address their hypotheses, replacement of animals in this area is a more individualized endeavour. Researchers and oversight boards have to evaluate the relevance of the research question and whether the tools of modern molecular and cell biology, genetics, biochemistry, and computational biology can be used in lieu of animals. While none of these tools on their own are capable of replicating a whole organism, they do provide a mechanistic understanding of molecular events. It is important for researchers and reviewers to assess differences in the clinical presentation and manifestation of diseases among species, as well as anatomical, physiological, and genetic differences that could impact the transferability of findings. Another relevant consideration is how well animal data can mirror relevant epigenetic effects and human genetic variability.

Examples of existing and promising non-animal methods have been reviewed recently by Langley and colleagues, who highlighted advances in fields including orthodontics, neurology, immunology, infectious diseases, pulmonology, endocrine and metabolism, cardiology, and obstetrics [52] .

Many researchers have also begun to rely solely on human data and cell and tissue assays to address large areas of therapeutic research and development. In the area of vaccine testing and development, a surrogate in-vitro human immune system has been developed to help predict an individual's immune response to a particular drug or vaccine [53] , [54] . This system includes a blood-donor base of hundreds of individuals from diverse populations and offers many benefits, including predictive high-throughput in vitro immunology to assess novel drug and vaccine candidates, measurement of immune responses in diverse human populations, faster cycle time for discovery, better selection of drug candidates for clinical evaluation, and reductions in the time and costs to bring drugs and vaccines to the market. In the case of vaccines, this system can be used at every stage, including in vitro disease models, antigen selection and adjuvant effects, safety testing, clinical trials, manufacturing, and potency assays. When compared with data from animal experiments, this system has produced more accurate pre-clinical data.

The examples above illustrate how innovative applications of technology can generate data more meaningful to humans, and reduce or replace animal use, but advances in medicine may also require novel approaches to setting research priorities. The Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, which focuses on eradicating breast cancer, has challenged research scientists to move from animal research to breast cancer prevention research involving women. If researchers could better understand the factors that increase the risk for breast cancer, as well as methods for effective prevention, fewer women would require treatment for breast cancer. Whereas animal research is largely investigator-initiated, this model tries to address the questions that are central to the care of women at risk for or affected by breast cancer. This approach has facilitated the recruitment of women for studies including a national project funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Environmental Health to examine how environment and genes affect breast cancer risk. This study, which began in 2002, could not have been accomplished with animal research [55] .

Similarly, any approach that emphasizes evidence-based prevention would provide benefits to both animals and humans. Resource limitations might require a strategic approach that emphasizes diseases with the greatest public health threats, which increasingly fall within the scope of preventable diseases.

It is clear that there have been many scientific and ethical advances since the first publication of Russell and Burch's book. However, some in the scientific community are beginning to question how well data from animals translates into germane knowledge and treatment of human conditions. Efforts to objectively evaluate the value of animal research for understanding and treating human disease are particularly relevant in the modern era, considering the availability of increasingly sophisticated technologies to address research questions [9] . Ethical objections to the use of animals have been publically voiced for more than a century, well before there was a firm scientific understanding of animal emotion and cognition [15] . Now, a better understanding of animals' capacity for pain and suffering is prompting many to take a closer look at the human use of animals [56] .

Articles in the accompanying Collection only briefly touch on the many scientific and ethical issues surrounding the use of animals in testing and research. While it is important to acknowledge limitations to non-animal methods remain, recent developments demonstrate that these limitations should be viewed as rousing challenges rather than insurmountable obstacles. Although discussion of these issues can be difficult, progress is most likely to occur through an ethically consistent, evidence-based approach. This collection aims to spur further steps forward toward a more coherent ethical framework for scientific advancement.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the conference speakers and participants for their participation.

Competing Interests: HRF and NB are employed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which is a non-governmental organization which promotes higher ethical standards in research and alternatives to the use of animals in research, education, and training. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit organization, and the authors adhered to PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Funding: The authors are grateful to the National Science Foundation (grant SES-0957163) and the Arcus Foundation (grant 0902-34) for the financial support for the corresponding conference, Animals, Research, and Alternatives: Measuring Progress 50 Years Later. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS  animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments  for  and  against  animal testing, and then give  your own conclusions  on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. 

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet. 

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

By visiting our site, you agree to our privacy policy regarding cookies, tracking statistics, etc.  Read more

• Crossbody Bags
• Vegan Belts
• Card Holders
• Wallets with coin pocket
• Key Wallets
• Travel Document Holders
• Travel Pouches
• Personalise

The Ethical Dilemma: Understanding the Cruelty of Animal Testing

How is animal testing cruel and unethical?

In today's world, where compassion and empathy are valued more than ever, we must scrutinise the practices that underlie the production of the products we use daily. Among these practices, animal testing is perhaps one of the most contentious, evoking strong emotions in many individuals. This article aims to shed light on the cruelty and ethical concerns surrounding animal testing, providing you with a comprehensive understanding of its impact on sentient beings. We will also look at technological advances that can provide more accurate and reliable outcomes.

The Beginnings of Animal Testing

Animal testing dates back to ancient times when physicians and alchemists used animals to understand the body's basic functions. However, it was not until the 20th century that it became an entrenched practice in modern science and industry. The development of new drugs, cosmetics, and household products led to a surge in the demand for testing, with animals serving as surrogate test subjects.

The Ethical Dilemma

1. Lack of Informed Consent

One of the most fundamental ethical issues surrounding animal testing lies in the fact that animals cannot provide informed consent. Unlike human volunteers who willingly participate in clinical trials after being fully informed of the potential risks, animals are subjected to testing without their consent or understanding. This stark power imbalance raises significant moral concerns.

2. Suffering and Pain

Animals, much like humans, experience pain and suffering. They possess nervous systems, hormonal responses, and emotional experiences that make them capable of feeling pain. When subjected to experiments, they endure various levels of distress, discomfort, and agony. This raises critical questions about the justification of inflicting such suffering on sentient beings for the benefit of humans.

3. Alternatives Exist

Advancements in science and technology have led to the development of alternative testing methods. These methods, such as in vitro studies, computer modelling, and human-based clinical trials, offer more accurate and humane ways to assess product safety and efficacy. Despite their availability, the industry still clings to outdated animal testing practices, perpetuating unnecessary harm. We will explain more about these techniques in the next section.

4. The Psychological Toll

Beyond the physical suffering, animal testing inflicts profound psychological distress on the test subjects. Many animals are isolated in barren environments and deprived of social interaction and stimulation. They are often subjected to confinement, loud noises, and artificial lighting, all leading to severe stress and anxiety. This neglect of their psychological well-being blatantly violates their rights as sentient beings.

5. Species Disparity

Another glaring ethical issue is the arbitrary selection of test subjects based on convenience rather than scientific relevance. Mice, rabbits, and other commonly used animals have physiological differences from humans, making the extrapolation of results to humans uncertain at best. This practice not only compromises the accuracy of scientific findings but also disregards the intrinsic value of each animal species.

6. The High Cost of Lives

The toll of animal testing is staggering in terms of lives lost. Millions of animals, including mice, rats, rabbits, dogs, and primates, are used in global experiments every year. Many do not survive the testing process, and those who do are often euthanised once the experiment concludes. This loss of life is a sombre reminder of the price paid for human convenience.

7. Failed Predictions

Despite the extensive use of animal testing, it is important to note that the predictive value of these experiments for human responses remains uncertain. Countless drugs and treatments that showed promise in animal studies have failed in human trials, leading to wasted resources and, tragically, delayed medical advancements. This disconnect between animal and human physiology underscores the flawed nature of relying on animal testing.

Common types of Animal Testing

Here are three examples of common types of animal testing experiments:

Dermal Irritation Testing:

Purpose: Dermal irritation testing is conducted to assess the potential skin irritancy of chemicals and products. This test helps determine if a substance may cause skin irritation or damage upon contact.

Procedure: In this experiment, a small area of an animal's skin, typically the back or ear, is shaved to expose the skin. The test substance is applied to the area, and the skin is observed for signs of irritation, such as redness, swelling, or blistering, over a specified period.

Species Used: Commonly, rabbits are used for dermal irritation tests due to their sensitive skin.

Acute Toxicity Testing:

Purpose: Acute toxicity testing aims to determine the potential harmful effects of a substance when it is ingested, inhaled, or comes into contact with the skin. This test helps establish the lethal dose or concentration of a substance.

Procedure: Animals are administered a range of doses of the test substance to observe the effects. The experiment continues until a predetermined number of animals have succumbed to the effects of the substance.

Species Used: Various species, including rats, mice, and guinea pigs, are used in acute toxicity tests.

Draize Eye Irritancy Test:

Purpose: The Draize test assesses the potential eye irritancy of chemicals and products. It helps determine if a substance may cause irritation, redness, or eye damage.

Procedure: In this experiment, a small amount of the test substance is applied to one eye of the test animal while the other eye serves as a control. The eyes are then observed for signs of irritation, such as redness, swelling, or discharge, over a specified period.

Species Used: Typically, rabbits are used in Draize eye irritancy tests due to their large and sensitive eyes.

Moving Towards Ethical Alternatives

Embracing technology.

Scientific alternatives to traditional animal testing have been rapidly evolving in recent years. These innovative approaches offer more precise, humane, and cost-effective ways to assess product safety and efficacy. Here are some of the most promising scientific alternatives that are emerging:

In Vitro Testing: In vitro testing involves conducting experiments in a controlled environment outside of a living organism. This approach often uses human cells, tissues, or organoids to mimic the physiological responses of the human body. In vitro testing allows researchers to study the effects of products on human biology directly, providing more relevant data than animal studies.

Organs-on-Chips: Microfluidic organs-on-chips are small, interconnected systems that replicate the structure and function of human organs. These chips contain living human cells and can simulate complex organ interactions. Organs-on-chips have the potential to revolutionise drug testing and disease modelling, as they provide a more accurate representation of how substances affect human organs and systems.

3D Bioprinting: 3D bioprinting technology enables the creation of three-dimensional living tissues and organs using a layer-by-layer printing process. This allows researchers to study the effects of products on human tissues in a controlled laboratory setting. 3D bioprinting holds immense promise for personalised medicine and drug testing.

Computational Modelling: Advances in computational modelling, including machine learning and artificial intelligence, have enabled scientists to predict the effects of chemicals and drugs on human biology with remarkable accuracy. These models can analyse vast amounts of data and simulate complex biological processes, reducing the need for animal testing in toxicity assessments.

Human Volunteer Studies: Human volunteer studies are a viable alternative to animal testing for some types of research. These studies involve willing human participants who are carefully monitored while using products or undergoing medical treatments. Human volunteer studies provide valuable data about product safety and efficacy in a real-world context.

Human-Organ Chips Network: Researchers are working on connecting multiple organs-on-chips to create a "human-on-a-chip" network. This interconnected system allows scientists to study how products impact the entire human body, including interactions between different organs and systems. It provides a more holistic understanding of how substances affect human health.

High-Throughput Screening: High-throughput screening involves rapidly testing large numbers of chemical compounds or drugs using automated systems. This approach allows researchers to assess a wide range of substances for their potential effects on human health without extensive animal testing.

In Silico Toxicology: In silico toxicology involves using computer simulations and modelling to predict the toxicity of chemicals and drugs. These simulations consider factors such as chemical structure, metabolism, and known toxicological data to estimate the potential risks associated with a substance.

Human-Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs): iPSCs are adult cells that have been reprogrammed to become stem cells capable of differentiating into various cell types. They can be used to create human cell models for studying diseases and testing the safety and efficacy of products. iPSC-based models offer a more human-relevant alternative to animal testing.

Microphysiological Systems: Microphysiological systems, also known as "body-on-a-chip" platforms, integrate different types of cells and tissues to replicate the functions of multiple organs simultaneously. These systems can mimic the complexity of human biology and provide valuable insights into the effects of products on the human body.

These emerging scientific alternatives are more ethical and offer the potential for more accurate and relevant data, ultimately improving the safety and effectiveness of products while reducing the harm inflicted on animals. As technology advances, these alternatives are likely to become more widespread, making animal testing increasingly unnecessary in medicine, cosmetics, and product safety assessment.

Supporting Ethical Brands

Consumers wield significant power in shaping the practices of the industries they support. By choosing products from companies committed to cruelty-free practices and ethical testing methods, individuals can drive positive change and create demand for alternatives to animal testing.

Cruelty-Free Certifications

Cruelty-free certifications for consumer products are labels or seals that indicate a product has not been tested on animals. These certifications are granted by independent organizations that verify and monitor a company's adherence to cruelty-free standards. Here are some of the most recognized cruelty-free certifications for consumer products:

Leaping Bunny:

• Certification Body: Leaping Bunny Program (Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics)
• Criteria: Companies must pledge not to conduct animal testing at any stage of product development and must provide documentation to verify their claims. Suppliers of raw materials must also adhere to these standards.
• Products Covered: Cosmetics, personal care products, household products, and some cleaning products.

PETA's Beauty Without Bunnies:

• Certification Body: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
• Criteria: Companies must sign a statement of assurance confirming they do not conduct or commission animal testing for any of their products, ingredients, or formulations.
• Products Covered: Cosmetics, personal care products, household cleaning products, and more.

Choose Cruelty-Free (CCF):

• Certification Body: Choose Cruelty Free Ltd.
• Criteria: Companies must meet strict criteria to ensure their products and ingredients have not been tested on animals. This includes ingredient suppliers.
• Products Covered: Cosmetics, personal care products, household cleaning products, and some skincare items.

Cruelty-Free International (CFI):

• Certification Body: Cruelty-Free International (formerly BUAV)
• Criteria: Companies must demonstrate that neither they nor their ingredient suppliers conduct animal testing for cosmetic purposes.

The Vegan Society's Vegan Trademark:

• Certification Body: The Vegan Society
• Criteria: Products must not contain any animal-derived ingredients, and they must not be tested on animals.
• Products Covered: Any products, not limited to cosmetics and personal care items.

Certified Vegan:

• Certification Body: Vegan Action
• Criteria: Products must not contain any animal-derived ingredients or undergo animal testing.

European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE):

• Certification Body: ECEAE
• Criteria: Companies must pledge not to conduct animal testing for cosmetic purposes.
• Products Covered: Cosmetics and personal care products.

It's important to note that certification requirements may vary slightly between organisations. Some certifications may be specific to certain regions or industries, while others have broader scopes. Consumers interested in supporting cruelty-free products should look for these certifications on product labels and research the criteria of the specific certification to ensure it aligns with their values.

The ethical dilemma surrounding animal testing is a complex issue that warrants careful consideration. As consumers, it is incumbent upon us to be aware of the impact our purchasing decisions have on the lives of sentient beings. By advocating for alternatives, supporting ethical brands, and fostering a culture of compassion, we can play a vital role in ushering in a future where animals are spared needless suffering in the name of science and industry. Together, we can pave the way towards a more humane and ethical approach to product testing.

Follow us on:

Main Image: Courtesy of PETA.

From Our Collection

Wallet with Coin Pocket in Black with Red

Billfold Wallet in Chestnut Brown with Blue

Wallet with Coin Pocket in Chestnut Brown with Blue

Slim Card Holder in Black

Bifold Card Holder in Black

105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for interesting animal testing topics to research and write about? This field is truly controversial and worth studying!

• 🌶️ Titles: Catchy & Creative
• 🐶 Essay: How to Write
• 🏆 Best Essay Examples
• 📌 Good Topics to Research
• 🎯 Most Interesting Topics to Write about

❓ Animal Testing Research Questions

In your animal testing essay, you might want to explore the historical or legal perspective, focus on the issue of animal rights, or discuss the advantages or disadvantages of animal testing in medicine, pharmacology, or cosmetic industry. We’ve gathered the most creative and catchy animal testing titles and added top animal testing essay examples. There are also useful tips on making and outline, formulating a thesis, and creating a hook sentence for your animal testing essay.

🌶️ Animal Testing Titles: Catchy & Creative

• What would life be like without animal testing?
• Animal testing: the cruelest experiments.
• AWA: why does not it protect all animals?
• What if animals experimented on humans?
• In the skin of a guinea pig: a narrative essay.
• Opposing animal testing: success stories.
• Animal-tested products: should they be destroyed?
• What have we gained from experiments on animals?
• Animal testing and cancer research: past and present.

🐶 Animal Testing Essay: How to Write

Animal testing has been an acute problem for a long time. Scientists and pharmaceutical firms use this approach to test cosmetics, foods, and other products people use daily.

Essays on animal testing are important because they highlight the significance of the problem. Writing outstanding animal testing essays requires extensive research and dedication.

We have prepared some do’s and don’ts for your excellent essay. But first, you should select a topic for your paper. Here are the examples of animal testing essay topics you can choose from:

• The question of animal intelligence from the perspective of animal testing
• Animal testing should (not) be banned
• How animal testing affects endangered species
• The history and consequences of animal testing
• The controversy associated with animal testing
• Animal Bill of Rights: Pros and cons
• Is animal testing necessary?

Remember that these animal testing essay titles are just the ideas for your paper. You are free to select other relevant titles and topics for discussion, too. Once you have selected the problem for your essay, you can start working on the paper. Here are some do’s of writing about animal testing:

• Do extensive preliminary research on the issue you have selected. You should be aware of all the problems associated with your questions, its causes, and consequences. Ask your professor about the sources you can use. Avoid relying on Wikipedia and personal blogs as your primary sources of information.
• Develop a well-organized outline and think of how you will structure your paper. Think of the main animal testing essay points and decide how you can present them in the paper. Remember to include introductory and concluding sections along with several body paragraphs.
• Start your paper with a hooking sentence. An animal testing essay hook should grab the reader’s attention. You can present an interesting question or statistics in this sentence.
• Include a well-defined thesis statement at the end of the introductory section.
• Your reader should understand the issue you are discussing. Explain what animal testing is, provide arguments for your position, and support them with evidence from your research.
• Discuss alternative perspectives on the issue if you are working on a persuasive essay. At the same time, you need to show that your opinion is more reliable than the opposing ones.
• Remember that your paper should not be offensive. Even if you criticize animal testing, stick to the formal language and provide evidence of why this practice is harmful.

There are some important points you should avoid while working on your paper. Here are some important don’ts to remember:

• Avoid making claims if you cannot reference them. Support your arguments with evidence from the literature or credible online sources even if you are writing an opinion piece. References will help the reader to understand that your viewpoint is reliable.
• Do not go over or below the word limit. Stick to your professor’s instructions.
• Avoid copying the essays you will find online. Your paper should be plagiarism-free.
• Avoid making crucial grammatical mistakes. Pay attention to the word choice and sentence structures. Check the paper several times before sending it for approval. If you are not sure whether your grammar is correct, ask a friend to look through the paper for you.

Do not forget to look at some of our free samples that will help you with your paper!

Animal Testing Hook Sentence

Your animal testing essay should start with a hook – an opening statement aiming to grab your reader’s attention. A good idea might be to use an impressive fact or statistics connected to experiments on animals:

• More than 100 million animals are killed in US laboratories each year.
• Animal Welfare Act (AWA) does not cover 99% animals used in experiments: according to it, rats, birds, reptiles, and fish are not animals.
• More than 50% adults in the US are against animal testing.

🏆 Best Animal Testing Essay Examples

• Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations […]
• Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research? It is therefore possible to use animals while testing the dangers and the toxicity of new drugs and by so doing; it is possible to protect human beings from the dangers that can emanate from […]
• Cosmetic Testing on Animals The surface of the skin or near the eyes of such animals is meant to simulate that of the average human and, as such, is one of easiest methods of determining whether are particular type […]
• The Debate on Animal Testing The purpose of this paper is to define animal testing within a historical context, establish ethical and legal issues surrounding the acts, discuss animal liberation movements, arguments in support and against the act of animal […]
• Animal Testing and Environmental Protection While the proponents of animal use in research argued that the sacrifice of animals’ lives is crucial for advancing the sphere of medicine, the argument this essay will defend relates to the availability of modern […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing In many instances it can be proofed that drugs have been banned from the market after extensive research on animal testing and consuming a lot of cash, because of the dire effects that they cause […]
• Animal Experiments and Inhuman Treatment Although the results of such a laboratory may bring answers to many questions in medicine, genetics, and other vital spheres, it is frequently a case that the treatment of such animals is inhumane and cruel. […]
• Animal Testing in Medicine and Industry Animal testing is the inescapable reality of medicine and industry. However, between human suffering and animal suffering, the former is more important.
• Preclinical Testing on Animals The authors argue that despite the recent decline in the level of quality and transparency of preclinical trials, the scientific communities should always rely on animal testing before moving to human subjects and the subsequent […]
• Using Animals in Medical Research and Experiments While discussing the use of animals in medical research according to the consequentialist perspective, it is important to state that humans’ preferences cannot be counted higher to cause animals’ suffering; humans and animals’ preferences need […]
• Animal Testing: History and Arguments Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Laboratory Experiments on Animals: Argument Against In some cases, the animals are not given any painkillers because their application may alter the effect of the medication which is investigated.
• Animal Testing From Medical and Ethical Viewpoints Striving to discover and explain the peculiarities of body functioning, already ancient Greeks and Romans resorted to vivisecting pigs; the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment era witnessed animal testing becoming the leading trend and a […]
• Negative Impacts of Animal Testing To alter these inhumane laws, we should organize a social movement aiming at the reconsideration of the role of animals in research and improvement of their positions.
• Animal Testing: Long and Unpretty History Nevertheless, that law was more focused on the welfare of animals in laboratories rather than on the prohibition of animal testing.
• Animal Testing as an Unnecessary and Atrocious Practice Such acts of violence could be partially excused by the necessity to test medications that are developed to save human lives however, this kind of testing is even more inhumane as it is ineffective in […]
• Animal Testing for Scientific Research Despite the fact that the present-day science makes no secret of the use of animals for research purposes, not many people know what deprivation, pain, and misery those animals have to experience in laboratories.
• Animal Testing and Ethics I believe it is also difficult to develop efficient legislation on the matter as people have different views on animal research and the line between ethical and unethical is blurred in this area.
• Animal Testing: History and Ethics Moreover, in the twelfth century, another Arabic physician, Avenzoar dissected animals and established animal testing experiment in testing surgical processes prior to their application to man. Trevan in 1927 to evaluate the effectiveness of digitalis […]
• Animal Testing Effects on Psychological Investigation In this context, ethical considerations remain a central theme in psychological research.”Ethics in research refers to the application of moral rules and professional codes of conduct to the collection, analysis, reporting, and publication of information […]
• Genetic Modification and Testing: Ethical Considerations It is done on a molecular level by synthesizing DNA, generating sequences and then inserting the received product into the organism which will be the carrier of the outcome. Another possibility is that the time […]
• Animal Testing: Why It Is Still Being Used The major reason for such “devotion” to animal testing can be explained by the fact that alternative sources of testing are insufficient and too inaccurate to replace conventional way of testing.
• Effects of Animal Testing and Alternatives Another challenge to the proponents of animal testing is related to dosage and the time line for a study. Animal rights values rebuff the notion that animals should have an importance to human beings in […]
• Ethics Problems in Animal Experimentation In spite of the fact that it is possible to find the arguments to support the idea of using animals in experiments, animal experimentation cannot be discussed as the ethical procedure because animals have the […]
• Animal Testing: Ethical Dilemmas in Business This means that both humans and animals have rights that need to be respected, and that is what brings about the many dilemmas that are experienced in this field.
• Should animals be used for scientific research? Therefore, considering the benefits that have been accrued from research activities due to use of animals in scientific research, I support that animals should be used in scientific research.
• Use of Animals in Research Testing: Ethical Justifications Involved The present paper argues that it is ethically justified to use animals in research settings if the goals of the research process are noble and oriented towards the advancement of human life.
• Ethical Problems in Animal Experimentation The banning of companies from testing on animals will force the manufacturers to use conventional methods to test their drugs and products.
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation There are alternatives in testing drugs such as tissue culture of human cells and hence this is bound to be more accurate in the findings.
• Use of Animals in Biological Testing Thus, these veterinarians have realized that the results that are realized from the animal research are very crucial in the improvement of the health of human being as well as that of animals.
• Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law Vaccines and treatment regimes for various diseases that previously led to the death of humans were all discovered through research on animals.
• Experimentation on Animals However, critics of experimenting with animals argue that animals are subjected to a lot of pain and suffering in the course of coming up with scientific breakthroughs which in the long run may prove futile.
• Psychoactive Drug Testing on Animals The alterations in behavioral traits of animals due to psychoactive drugs are primarily attributed to the changes in the brain functions or inhibition of certain brain components in animals which ultimately translates to changes in […]

📌 Good Animal Testing Topics to Research

• Monkeys Don’t Like Wearing Makeup: Animal Testing In The Cosmetics Industry
• Animal Testing – Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted
• Essay Animal Testing and In Vitro Testing as a Replacement
• Animal Testing : A Better Knowledge Of Human Body
• The Importance Of Animal Testing For Evaluating Consumer Safety
• The Issues on Animal Testing and the Alternative Procedures to Avoid the Use of the Inhuman Experimentation
• An Alternative to the Harsh and Unnecessary Practices of Animal Testing for Products, Drugs, Chemicals and Other Research
• The Unethical Use of Animals and the Need to Ban Animal Testing for Medical Research Purposes in the United States
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing for the Purpose of Clinical Research
• An Argument Against Animal Testing and the Banning of the Practice in the United States
• The Debate About the Ethics of Animal Testing and Its Effects on Us
• An Argument in Favor of Animal Testing as Beneficial to Human Health Research
• Animal Testing and the Reasons Why It Should Be Illegal
• The Principles of the Animal Testing From the Human Perspective
• The Ethical Issues on the Practice of Animal Testing to Test Cosmetics and Drugs
• Stopping Animal Testing and Vivisection by Passing a Bill against Animal Cruelty

🎯 Most Interesting Animal Testing Topics to Write about

• An Argument Against Animal Testing of Consumer Products and Drugs
• The Consequences and Unethical Practice of Animal Testing for Medical Training and Experiments
• How Do The Contributions Of Animal Testing To Global Medical
• Ways To Improve Animal Welfare After Premising The Animal Testing
• Animal Testing – Necessary or Barbaric and Wrong?
• Animal Testing And Its Impact On The Environment
• Animal Testing and Its Contribution to the Advancement of Medicine
• Cosmetics and Animal Testing: The Cause of Death and Mistreatment
• Animal Testing And People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals
• Animal Rights Activists and the Controversial Issue of Animal Testing
• A History and the Types of Animal Testing in the Medical Area
• Argumentation on Medical Benefits of Animal Testing
• An Analysis of the Concept of Animal Testing Which Lowers the Standard of Human Life
• Is The Humane Society International Gave For Animal Testing
• A Discussion of Whether Animal Testing Is Good for Mankind or Violation of Rights
• The Ethics Of Animal Testing For Vaccine Development And Potential Alternatives
• The Good and Bad of Human Testing and Animal Testing
• What Should the Government Do About Animal Testing?
• Why Does Animal Testing Lower Our Standard of Living?
• Should Animals Be Used in Research?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Accepted in the World?
• How Does Technology Impact Animal Testing?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?
• Should Animal Testing Remain Legal?
• Why Should Animal Testing Be Banned?
• Can the Animal Testing Done to Find Cures for Diseases Be Humane?
• Does Animal Testing Really Work?
• Why Can’t Alternatives Like Computers Replace Research Animals?
• Should Animal Testing Continue to Test Cures for Human Diseases?
• How Does Animal Testing Effect Medicine?
• Should Animal Testing Continue or Be Stopped?
• What Are Advantages and Disadvantages of Animal Testing?
• Why Can Animal Testing Save Our Lives?
• Is Stem Cell Research Beginning of the End of Animal Testing?
• Do Beauty Products Suffer From Negative Publicity if They Conduct Trials on Animals?
• Should Medicine Trials Be Conducted?
• Can Results of Animal Testing Be Generalized to Adults?
• What Are the Origin and History of Animal Testing?
• Why Are Animals Needed to Screen Consumer Products for Safety When Products Tested by Alternative Methods, Are Available?
• How Much Does an Animal Suffer Due to Testing?
• What Is the Effectiveness of Animal Rights Groups in Stopping Animal Testing?
• How Do We Learn From Biomedical Research Using Animals?
• Who Cares for Animals in Research?
• How Do Laboratory Animal Science Professionals Feel About Their Work?
• Why Are There Increasing Numbers of Mice, Rats, and Fish Used in Research?
• How Can We Be Sure Lost or Stolen Pets Are Not Used in Research?
• Why Do Clinical Trials in Humans Require Prior Animal Testing?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 9). 105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/

"105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "105 Animal Testing Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 9, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/animal-testing-essay-examples/.

• Animal Abuse Research Topics
• Cruelty to Animals Titles
• Humanism Research Ideas
• Animal Ethics Research Ideas
• Meaning of Life Essay Ideas
• Animal Rights Research Ideas
• Cloning Questions
• Vegetarianism Essay Ideas
• Animal Welfare Ideas
• Bioethics Titles
• Wildlife Ideas
• Extinction Research Topics
• Hunting Questions
• Genetic Engineering Topics
• Zoo Research Ideas