Should Animals be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

by Jasmine P. on September 12, 2016 - 8:31pm


Animal testing is a very controversial topic in this modern age. According to the advocates in favor of animal testing, there is a belief that animal testing enables the development of life-saving treatments and advances the development of many other fields in sciences, most notably medicine. In contrary, there are advocates against animal testing that claim it is an unnecessary, cruel and inhumane method used that can be altered. Of course, there is many ways to look into this issue and a wide-range of arguments in favor and against animal testing. In the article “Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?” by, arguments are presented on both sides of this debatable topics and explored.

As said earlier, advocates in favor claim that animal testing greatly contributed to the development of many cures and treatments for conditions such as breast cancer, childhood leukemia, malaria, and tuberculosis. In addition to that, they believe there is no other adequate alternative to test on a living, whole-body system. The living systems of human beings and animals are extremely complex and cannot be adequately tested on cell cultures in a petri dish like the opposing view claims. According to those in favor of animal testing, to evaluate a drug side effects it requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs of the body. Not only that but certain conditions like blindness cannot be studied in tissue cultures.

Moreover, those against animal testing believe the results are irrelevant for most cases because animals are very different from human beings and make poor test subjects. For them, using cell cultures in petri dish generates results that are more relevant since it can be tested on artificial human cells. Not only that, but computer models can virtually reconstruct the human molecular structures to predict the toxicity of substances. Both methods proposed would limit any casualties for animals if a product goes wrong and it could potentially stop animal testing.

Of course, those in favor counter that argument by claiming that not only do human beings share approximately 98% DNA with mice’s and 99% DNA with chimpanzees but that computer models can only be reliable if accurate information is collected from animal research to build the models in the first place. In addition, the technology of today still does not simulate organs such as the brain and therefore cannot be used.

Lastly, those in favor of animal testing believe that regulations are already in place and are already preventing as much as possible the mistreatment of animals in laboratories. As usual, those against animal testing counter it by saying that it does not do enough and more can be done.

In my opinion, I believe both opinions are right and wrong. As much as I like the idea of having a world free of animal testing, I also know it is not yet possible. One of my principles is to act in accordance with my own best interest and human life is fundamentally valuable. Therefore, having a cure or a treatment being developed for breast cancer or any wide-spread diseases that I have high chances of having in the future, it fits my principles. Though I do believe more can be done regarding the regulations for animal testing and that new method should be innovated and funded.

ProCon. “Should Animals be used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” 2016. Web. 13 Sept. 2016.


The title of your entry caught my attention while going through all the articles; I find this topic extremely interesting. In my opinion I agree with your view that neither side of the argument, for or against animal testing, is wrong. If I were to say I’m for animal testing I would have to use to value of family to justify myself. By allowing animal testing to take place it can bring about many good findings that may be able to save/protect the people I care about most. On the other hand if I were to say I’m against animal testing I would use the value of security as a justification. Permitting animal testing to take place is unfair for the animals because when they are tested on they are forced to face painful and life-threatening conditions, something I find unfair. So to reiterate, I think there are good things that come out of animal testing but I’m not sure that we should be compromising the lives of innocent animals just for our own benefit. Do you think animal testing should completely be banned or should we just implement stricter rules and guidelines?

I'm glad the title intrigued you. In response to your question, I believe animal testing should be banned completely, eventually. Currently, technology does not permit us to do such a thing. Hence, why I think for now we should simply implement stricter rules and guidelines as well as fund research for new methods.

Thank you for your comment.

This is a subject that we sometimes hear about in the news or around us but I believe that we do not talk about it enough in a society that uses those techniques each and every day. This is a great subject because it is a real question of ethics. Your text is very well written and strongly outlines each point of view. My point of view differs a little bit from yours because I do not believe that we should use animals as means to an end. We use them to see if there are no dangers for human lives but by doing so we put their lives in danger. We use them only as a means to an end and we are also going against the moral do no harm. I believe that we should find a way to use technology in our favour on this issue and to protect animals. They should not be the ones on who we test. Every one should be equal and animals should also be. I believe that my life is as important as another animals life and I strongly think that I should not test on other forms of life just to put my own best interest in front. Otherwise it is a very good text and I believe that this is an issue that we do not talk about enough. Companies try to avoid this subject but why? Probably because we would be surprised of how much they use animal testing to test their products before selling them in pharmacies. Do you think this is right from them?

I'm glad the subject of my entry intrigued you. I also agree with you when it comes to the awareness of this issue. A lot of people do not even realize how many of their products passed through animal testing. As much as I agree with you when it comes to banning animal testing completely, I also realize that technology is not yet at point for us to remove this practice altogether. Hence, why i believe we should fund more research on new methods.

Lastly, to answer your question, I think it is wrong of companies to avoid the subject. Afterall, it is our right to know where our products come from.

Thank you for your comment.

The issue being questioned in your title was what made me read your entry. I believe that animal testing is a relevant topic nowadays and that it’s important to talk about it. I though you relayed well the positive and negative aspect of the issue. Even though I am against it because I believe that it is wrong to use animals as a means to an end, I understand the other parties’ opinion. Animal testing could greatly help in the discovery of possible cures against diseases such as breast cancer and malaria, however, as you mentioned, there are other methods to test those cures. Why not concentrate on improving those? Furthermore, I too believe that even though I really like the idea of a world without animal testing, I know that it is not possible. But what we have to ask ourselves is how many animals will have to die for us to complete our research and feel satisfied?