Even though there are a lot of people that believe that animal testing is cruel and unethical, I believe these strong opinions are the result of lacking research and incorrect information regarding the testing of animals. Most people are ill informed and base their judgement on general blatant outbursts of people that usually don’t know what they are talking about.

It is first necessary to find out what the animals are actually being tested for. This is in fact quite important because that narrows down the type of tests and also the ultimate effect on the animal. There is, for example, a huge difference in testing animals for cosmetic products and testing animals for AIDS research. The cosmetic product testing is done by companies that in the end want to make a product that will sell, so they test their new product on an animal and observe the results. Based on those results, the company gets permission to either sell the product or terminate its production. In the end, the animal is used for one reason, to make money. This doesn’t better humanity in one way, except giving it another perfume or shampoo (maybe not good examples…).

On the other hand, testing animals in order to further research for cures or diseases is a other whole thing. The test animals are utilized to better humanity, and they fulfill a noble purpose. This type of animal testing should be allowed, especially if it makes a difference in the life of sick people.

As a result, people should research what they actually mean when they say, “animal testing should be banned”. If a couple of animals are sacrificed to save a sick child, in my opinion, I wouldn’t mind being a little unethical.

More posts to follow…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to

  1. Véronique says:

    Even though, animal testing for medical applications is more needed, in my opinion using animals for cosmetics is neither negligible. For example, using soap can cause allergic reactions or skin irritations in some people. So research is definitely warranted. But I agree if you say there should be no new types of e.g. shampoo. But you can not avoid the fact that companies always want more and better. In fact, companies who say their products aren’t tested on animals aren’t totally honest. Their products need to be healthy, hygienic and safety before it can be approved for public purchase and use. So they may didn’t test the cosmetic products on animals themselves, but the ingredients or formulations they use are probably tested on animals previously. To avoid animal testing, cosmetic companies can test their products on human volunteers, but I’m not sure if there are many volunteers…

  2. hverrijssen says:

    I agree when you say that cosmetic products need to be tested thoroughly one way or another before they come on the market. However, I think it also depends on the product because I don’t think that a special anti-balding shampoo made specifically for humans would give the exact same result when tested on a rat because the biological characteristics are simply different between the two species. In this case, like you said, human testing would be more advantageous.
    I think it is necessary for companies to make sure that whatever they are testing a product on displays the same results as the consumer would after usage. In my opinion, it is seldom the case for example that animals display the same skin symptoms as humans after being exposed to a moisturizing cream made for humans. Some commercial compounds might be toxic for humans but not for animals, or the other way around. Of course, this fact can be manipulated and used against the testing of animals in biomedical research, and that is why companies and organizations are required to determine that the testing of their products on animals is especially beneficial and the only choice.

    • Gerty says:

      These days’ commercialized research involving human subjects is being conducted all over the world. Companies are attracting volunteers with e.g. a good pay, free food or free medical care. A lot of these volunteers are poor people or students, sometimes in the United States but often in Europe, India and Southeast Asia. The companies barely mention something about the risks the products they are testing can have. For example there were a group of people in England involved in a study of experimental leukemia drug and they all wound up in the hospital with a critical condition. In Montreal, volunteers apparently caught tuberculosis from an infected subject they’d been housed with.

      I think companies can do studies on humans, if they offer a good pay with it. But they first have to be sure that there are barely any risks attached to their product. Because some companies don’t put safety and welfare at first place because they just want to earn money and make their deadlines.
      There was a case where the subjects went into acute organ failure and suffered excruciating pain immediately after being exposed to a new substance intended to fight some forms of cancer. Some doctors are outraged that the study was allowed to even start given that there had been previous problems in animals and people with very a very similar substance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s