Animal testing has been going on since the late nineteenth century. Over the years, billions of animals have been killed from experiments, but the amount of animals tested on has fallen 50% since 1968 (Davis 22). With that much of a decline, I cant imagine how many animals were once used and for what purposes.
Even with the 50% decline, the number of animals sacrificed for medical and biomedical ends in the United States each year is unknown, but certainly exceeds 60 million and may possibly be as high as 100 million (Kuker-Reines 1). That amount of animals sacrificed each year is horrible especially when a lot of the test turn out to be inaccurate. Of animals currently being used today, about 85% of these are rats and mice, and less than 2% are cats, dogs and non-human primates (National 18). While researchers do their jobs to find alternatives, one easy way anybody can help animals is start watching what they buy and make sure they arent indirectly supporting the cruelty to animals.
Many corporations test on animals, but probably the largest is Proctor & Gamble. People may think they arent contributing to the torture of animals, but Proctor & Gamble has over a hundred everyday products that were at one time tested on. Some of their main products consist of Old Spice, Secret and Sure deodorants. Some other products are Head and Shoulders, Ivory, Pantene, Pert, Vidal Sassoon, Always, Tampax, Tide, Febreze, Crest, Scope, Clearasil, Cover Girl, Noxzema and Oil of Olay. That may seem like a lot, but those are just some of the products that Proctor & Gamble test.
Testing cosmetics consist of placing rabbits in stocks that immobilize their heads and researchers dropping the substance into one eye, using the other as a control. The pain may be so great the rabbits break their backs trying to escape (Regan 198). I bet that even after the animals break their backs, the researchers continue until they have the info they need without giving the animal anything for the pain. In other experiments, the animals may be force fed products or have them rubbed or injected into their skin (Regan 198). Forcing millions of animals to go through the trauma is definitely Animal Cruelty Essay. In most cases, the animals will probably end up dead, but in some experiments the tests will run until the animal dies.
Such a case is determining the lethal dose of radiation used in cancer therapy (National 19). No matter what the test is or how it is performed, there is always an alternative to hurting and killing an innocent animal. Another thing wrong with animal testing is a lot of times the tests are wrong or inconclusive. There are several issues that effect test results. A reason test are inconclusive is because animals cannot describe their experiences including the aches and pains that are sometimes the side effects of drugs (Regan 202). I believe that that is a big problem with any test, the animals cant tell you how they really feel.
Without the results of controlled clinical trials, it is impossible to be sure whether a treatment developed through animal research is really effective in man, or is it actually doing the patient more harm than good (Kuker-Reines 1)? Those are some reasons test are inaccurate, but some others are because without humans having the same susceptibility as animals, the drug may actually turn out to be bad for humans. With different susceptibilities, of 19 chemicals known to cause cancer in humans when ingested, only seven caused cancer in mice and rats (Barnard 82). Considering cancer is one of the biggest tests done on animals, I think that is a huge factor that should be considered every time researchers get their results. An example is the drug fialuridine which was safe in animal trials, yet caused liver failure in seven of 15 humans taking the drug. Five died and the other two had transplants (Barnard 81).
Results can be even more emotional if you take the drug and it hurts somebody else. Thalidomide was introduced to treat morning sickness in pregnant women and was tested on a wide variety of animals before being .
