Animal Testing
Scientific testing on animals is a harshly disputed topic. People have argued against it using arguments such as the moral implications it has or the well-being of the animals. But, scientists say we need evidence to show that an antibody or cure for a disease will work before it could be used on humans. I think it is imperative for humans to test drugs and medicines on animals for the good of mankind. Scientists should continue to conduct tests on animals for scientific research because we are superior to them, human lives are more important, and we need some basis of facts before we start using them on humans.
We are superior to all other known animals because we have the ability to reason. W are more intelligent than them, and we have more ability than them. John Hollrah says, �We�re opposed to it, naturally, on ethical grounds that animals shouldn�t be used and regarded as spare parts� (Shannon 49A). I disagree. Animals are alive, but still they do so little for anything and they are so abundant that we can regard them as spare parts. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If we can use animals, the few, to help people, the many, then we should do so. We will be more useful if we find cures for diseases more than the the animals would be useful if they kept their lives. We can do so much more than them, and we are better than them. So, if it is beneficial to us, we should test all treatments on animals before trying it on us.
Human lives are much more important than animals. We have the ability to improve the earth, unlike animals. We will be much more successful than animals in the long run. If we use five animals� lives to save one human life, then it is well worth it. The human that could be saved may be someone who helps us win a war or makes a hypothesis that leads to the development of the warp drive. Tom Butler said, �We certainly should use any alternative or adjunct methods such as computers, cell cultures...computer modeling, that sort of thing, as much as we can� (Shannon 49A). I agree with that statement because you shouldn�t just waste a life. But, at some point in time, you are going to have to use some sort of live animal to support an experiment. It is much better to waste the life of a baboon than it is to waste the life of a human.
We need some basis of facts before we start using some sort of drug or antibody on humans. Tom Butler also said, �Regardless of what the animal rights people say, you cannot do medical research without at some point, somewhere in the system, using the animal. You just have to� (Shannon 49A). Nobody is going to let another person get away with letting a human let another human die because of an unproven drug. The only way to prove that a drug or medicine is safe is by testing it on another animal. If we found a cure for cancer, we would have to use it on an animal. If no one let it be used on an animal, and the cure would have been effective, then that could be a loss of thousands of human lives for that one chimp.
Research is very important for all people. we need to research things so that we can advance in medicine and technology. If it requires using animals, then so be it. We need to find new medicines to better the quality of life. Humans are so much better and much more important than any animal could ever be. We need to use animals when needed so that we will have a good idea of its effectiveness. If using animals will help science, by all means we should use them. We should continue to use animals to help science. Medicine is one of the most helpful things to humans. We need it. I�m not saying that something like spraying a chemical in an animal�s eyes is good, but if it does help humanity in a good way, such as in medicines, then we should test the medicine on them first. We should only test animals if it clearly helps science or our quality of life. We should always try to help science, even if it means sacrificing animals for a good cause.
Works Cited
Shannon, Kelley. �Baboon Colony Caters to Science.� Dallas Morning News. February 21, 1993: 49A. SIRS, 1995.