There is also the possibility that poor research practices could create false positive data that could then place human lives at risk. Therefore, rigorous regulatory adherence should result in minimal invasive animal use.
If vaccines were not tested on animals, a lot of them could have died from diseases and health conditions, such as hepatitis, rabies, leukemia, anthrax, parvo, hip dysplasia, glaucoma, etc.
The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases. Providing further examples, PharmaInformatic released a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole Abilify and esomeprazole Nexiumshowed low oral bioavailability in animals.
Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: In short, contrary to the poorly-substantiated claims of animal researchers, the overwhelming majority of invasive animal experiments do not pass the cost-benefit test required by regulations and expected by society.
Advances in breast cancer, brain trauma, leukemia, cystic fibrosis, malaria, multiple sclerosis and tuberculosis are directly attributable to animal experimentation, and without testing on chimpanzees, there would be no hepatitis B vaccine.
As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm.
In most cases […] little direct evidence was available of actual medical benefit in the form of changes in clinical practice or new treatments.
Despite data from multiple Australian states or territories remaining publicly unavailablemy calculations have revealed that, even when limited to states releasing figures, Australia was still the fourth largest user of laboratory animals worldwide, both overall and per capita.
All of the accused and recorded staff involved were fired and prosecuted. But what is really important is that these alternatives are less expensive than animal experimentations. Though the composition of animals is not entirely similar to that of human beings, it will still suffice for research to use on tests and see how beauty products would work on people.
To use an analogy: They are forced fed, deprived of food and water, restrained physically for prolonged periods, inflicted with burns, wounds and pain to test for healing process effects and remedies, and even killed through neck-breaking or asphyxiation.
Also, they feel that the method is allowing them to safeguard the environment. As outlined above, a large and remarkably consistent body of evidence indicates that resultant social benefits are rarely, if ever, sufficient to justify the costs incurred by animals subjected to invasive research.
Despite the fact that the conditions of animals in labs are monotonous, stressful, and very unnatural for them, invasive experimentation persists, and even when the endpoint is death. Millions of them would have died from distemper, rabies, leukemia, tetanus, infectious hepatitis virus, parvo or anthrax.List of Cons of Animal Testing on Cosmetics.
1. It causes death of animals.
While there are painless trials, where animals are able to return to wherever they came from afterwards, this does not always happens in all trials. 10 Pros and Cons of Animal Experimentation Millions of animals are being used for experiments in the US each year.
Those who support this legal practice say that it is for a good cause, implying that it is better to use animals than human beings for testing. Animal rights advocates argue that such testing is unnecessary and cruel, while proponents of animal testing believe that the benefits to humans outweigh the moral issues.
Alternatives One argument against animal testing is that there are often more acceptable alternatives. Animal testing provides quite a few benefits to the human race. Countless medical treatments have been developed through the use of animal testing.
The biggest problems are the ethical ones, which need to be individually addressed rather than animal testing as a whole. Argument Essay - Animal Testing is necessary; Argument Essay – Animal Testing is necessary Essay Sample.
Sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. This does not mean that animal testing should go unchecked.
Suffering is kept to a minimum by legislation and advancements in testing alternatives. Animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. The California Biomedical Research Association states that nearly every medical breakthrough in the last years has resulted directly from research using animals.Download