animal testing argument essay

Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay

Animal testing: introduction, animal testing: debatable questions, animal testing: conclusion.

Animal testing denotes the use of animals in medical experiments to unveil the potency, safety, toxicity, and viability of developed drugs. Concurrently, the phenomenon also applies to other biological experiments, which utilize animals as specimens. The method incorporates the administration of pharmaceutical compounds into biological systems (test animals).

This usually occurs for scientific purposes and medical developments. The process is debatable and has been disputed by animal activists, religious groups, and ethical communities who believe that the trend is immoral and inappropriate since animals cannot be compared with human beings (Panza & Potthast, 2010).

Animal testing usually involve vertebrates like rodents, cats, dogs, birds, and Guinea pigs among others. Since this is a disputable phenomenon, where one can argue for or against the act, this paper supports the aspects of animal testing with bountiful reasons based on its viability in investigating pharmacological compounds. Without animal testing, numerous drugs, which currently help the humankind, could have missed.

Since human beings cannot commence crude pharmaceutical investigations as test specimens, using test animals is significant in this context. It is advisable to execute scientific investigations elsewhere before introducing them into human beings. It is crucial to agree that animal testing might be unethical phenomenon as argued by some groups; nonetheless, it should continue following its merits and contributions to the humankind in the realms of drug investigations and scientific discoveries.

With regard to animal testing, debatable questions emerge. In this paper, “Should animal testing be abandoned due to ethical claims surrounding it?” forms the debated question. This question tries to unveil whether it is viable for biologists and medical scientists to cease from using animals for experimental investigations.

Despite the conventional use of these animals in numerous scientific experiments, it is still debatable on their viability and potency. Arguably, the animal testing phenomenon should continue with regard to scientific investigations.

The need for efficacy, safety, novelty, and certainty in the realms of drug-use require thorough investigative experiments, which can only materialize when test animals are incorporated. Firstly, some animal have systems that resemble those of human beings; thus, the ability to use such animals give a broader chance of executing an elaborate experimental investigation.

Using animals as representative of humans is a critical phenomenon when scrutinized critically. There are numerous individuals who have disputed this claim as stated in the research question. The desire to continue with the animal testing phenomenon has infuriated numerous activists who are against it (Panza & Potthast, 2010).

Nonetheless, it is evident and appropriate that this phenomenon should continue for further discoveries to be realized. It is questionable how further medical research will occur and how this will materialize without the use of test animals. This is an impossible phenomenon, which demands those who are arguing against animal testing to reconsider their stands.

Another issue is that human beings cannot be used as experimental animals. The drugs administered into humans must be of some quality, minimized toxicity, viable to use, potent, safe, and effective. This means that they have been investigated and approved by the concerned bodies after scientific investigations. If animal testing will be abandoned, no effective experimentation will occur on biological vessels.

Evidently, invitro (using experimental tubes) experimentations are slow and incomprehensive. This means that scientific investigations will delay and sometimes results might not occur. It is vital to consider that animal testing has helped significantly since its inception several decades ago. It has remained a viable, trusted, and considerable experimental design for pharmaceutical products and other scientific investigations.

Harrison & Hester (2006), which identifies alternative of animal testing, agrees that attaining an alternative of this trend is daunting and minimally achievable. Scientific considerations support this trend since there are limited alternatives to replace the method comprehensively (Harrison & Hester, 2006).

Those who are against animal testing claim that animals are not human beings and equating the two is inconsiderable. Evidently, animal are not exact copies of humans. There are numerous differences noticeable amidst the two factions. Additionally, they argue that what works best in a guinea pig (an experimental animal), might not exactly perform in humans.

The two factions (humans and test animals) are different hence the assumption that they can emulate each other is misled. Notably, this argument is understandable; however, as the situation stands, it is still appropriate to conduct animal testing to help in research investigations. Humans can hardly be used for crude or undeveloped researches as the ones done with test animals. This means that animal testing is still the best option.

According to Schmidt (2001), which discusses the aspects of animal testing, recognizes that it is important to infer that what is inconsumable for test animals is similarly consumable for humans. It is possible to note the adverse effects of drugs with animals, make appropriate changes in the composition of the tested drug, and later emerge with effective, safe, and potent compound worth human utilization.

Watson (2009), which describes the ethical issues related to animal testing, argues that some ethical claims behind the animal testing are baseless when compared to human lives saved daily due to animal testing executed to investigate proper and effective drugs. A mere claim that it is immoral to inject or administer unworthy compounds into an innocent animal while doing research is superfluous. This simply means that those who are against animal testing hardly want researches to be done using animals.

This is good and considerable; however, these very people hardly provide viable alternatives that can work better compared to the conventional animal testing provisions. Besides, they are also among those who gain from the findings and results achieved from such investigations. Evidently, almost all drugs currently used in the world at one point passed through animal testing to unveil their viability, safety, efficacy, toxicity levels, and other viable provisions demanded in this context.

Concurrently, it is inappropriate to abandon animal testing as claimed by the activists. The current discoveries on genetics, reproduction, developmental biology, and study of behaviors among others could have not materialized minus animal testing.

Additionally, there are other viable provisions that characterize the phenomenon besides the known pharmaceutical investigations which usually occur using test animals as stipulated before. In these mentioned fields, there are still considerable knowledge gaps that will necessitate further application of animal testing in order to unveil additional information.

This phenomenon can hardly occur minus animal testing since there will be no specimens for further research. The ethical claims fronted by the mentioned activists should cease from hindering further investigations (Watson, 2009). It is evident that discoveries made from animal testing are numerous and helpful to the human race as indicated earlier. The need for more investigations and application of animal testing will continue to exist following its viability, applicability, and reliability in the aspects of research.

The viewpoint that animals equally have moral rights is evident; however, it is disputable in this context since it acts as a hindrance to lucrative investigations and discoveries that are helpful to the humankind. Hayhurst (2000), which debates on animal rights, denotes that individuals who perceive animal as having rights are equally accurate in their opinions; nonetheless, they should also consider the merits of animal testing to their lives and beyond.

This relates to the ethical arguments posted with regard to this topic. It forms the center of argument from various people. It is crucial to denote that animal testing has numerous provisions worth noting in varying contexts. This relates to its viability and potency in unveiling the less investigated claims with regard to life. According to various sources, some arguments regarding the aspects of animal testing are invalid and misleading (Hayhurst, 2000). They simply emerge from undue compassion for animals.

This contributes to why this paper agrees with the continuity of animal testing. Precisely, its merits surpass its baseless flaws numerous times. It is recommendable to scrutinize these arguments before they derail the realities that encompass a given matter. It is crucial to consider such provisions following their viability in this context.

Additionally, those who argue against animal testing claim that such animals lack the capacity to express themselves hence can hardly show their pain, dissatisfaction, and suffering.

This is a critical claim; however, it is not enough to support the ban against animal testing. Conversely, scientists, medics, and biologists who use such animals apply moral aspects to their undertakings; hence, will barely intend to harm such experimental animals. Since such ethical observations are carried out within the mentioned experimental testing, it is considerable to continue with the animal testing phenomenon. Adjusting the conditions of these tests might equally help in upholding the ethical demands.

Another argument is that animal testing simplifies and speeds the experimental designs meant to make discoveries. This could have not been achievable minus such experimental trends. Testing developed research products on animals elicit the desired results with promptness. It is daunting and time consuming to develop therapeutic and diagnostic compounds from human beings. This relates to the aspects of delay claimed earlier.

Scientists will not be able to attain their demands in time. This might discourage them from continuing with investigations. Since the use of animal testing provides instant results, its application is widespread, applicable, and viable in numerous contexts. The aspects of safety indicated earlier in these claims equally contribute to the applicability of animal testing. It is improper to execute unsafe experiments or unverified drugs on humans.

The repercussions might be devastating than when it was applied on test animals (Schmidt, 2001). For example, developments and investigations on HIV drugs cannot occur on humans at their initial stages. It is advisable to develop them through animal testing before rendering them usable by humans. It is possible to adjust the composition of the given compound to unveil its viable concentrations. Emerging with instant results supports the application of animal testing and contributes massively in this context.

Animal testing is a helpful phenomenon in biological, medical, and other scientific investigations demanding its incorporation. The phenomenon is helpful, viable, and should be embraced despite the opposing opinions. Animal testing helps in developing effective, safe, viable, qualitative, and less toxic drugs. Following the merits of animal testing, its application and advancements should continue while observing ethical concerns.

Harrison, R. & Hester, R. (2006). Alternatives to Animal Testing . Ohio, OH: Cengage Learning.

Hayhurst, C. (2000). Animal testing: The animal rights debate . New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group.

Panza, C. & Potthast, A. (2010). Ethics For Dummies . Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Schmidt, A. (2001). Animal testing in infectiology . Basel: Karger.

Watson, S. (2009). Animal testing: Issues and ethics . New York, NY: Rosen Pub.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 6). Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/

"Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." IvyPanda , 6 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay'. 6 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Animal Testing: Should Animal Testing Be Allowed? — Argumentative Essay." November 6, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/animal-testing-argumentative-essay/.

• Has the Internet Positively or Negatively Impacted Human Society? Argumentative Essay
• Pros and Cons of Abortion to the Society Argumentative Essay
• Enhancement Drugs in Sports Should Be Banned: An Argumentative Paper
• Utilitarianism for Animals: Testing and Experimentation
• Burmese Pythons
• Grass Fed versus Grain and Corn Fed Animals
• Use of Animals in Biological Testing
• The Impact of Burmese Pythons on Florida’s Native Biodiversity

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Animal Testing Essay

Ielts animal testing essay.

Here you will find an example of an IELTS  animal testing essay .

In this essay, you are asked to discuss the arguments  for  and  against  animal testing, and then give  your own conclusions  on the issue.

This means you must look at both sides of the issue and you must also be sure you give your opinion too.

The essay is similar to an essay that says " Discuss both opinions and then give your opinion " but it is worded differently.

Take a look at the question and model answer below, and think about how the essay has been organised and how it achieves coherence and cohesion.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Examine the arguments in favour of and against animal experiments, and come to a conclusion on this issue.

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Animals Testing Essay - Model Answer

Issues related to animal experimentation are frequently discussed these days, particularly in the media. It is often said that animals should not be used in testing because it is cruel and unnecessary. This essay will examine the arguments for and against animal testing. 

On the one hand, the people who support these experiments say that we must do tests on animals. For instance, many famous lifesaving drugs were invented in this way, and animal experiments may help us to find more cures in the future. Indeed, possibly even a cure for cancer and AIDS. Furthermore, the animals which are used are not usually wild but are bred especially for experiments. Therefore, they believe it is not true that animal experiments are responsible for reducing the number of wild animals on the planet. 

On the other hand, others feel that there are good arguments against this. First and foremost, animal experiments are unkind and cause animals a lot of pain. In addition, they feel that many tests are not really important, and in fact animals are not only used to test new medicines but also new cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead. Another issue is that sometimes an experiment on animals gives us the wrong result because animals’ bodies are not exactly the same as our own. As a consequence, this testing may not be providing the safety that its proponents claim.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion, on balance, that the benefits do not outweigh the disadvantages, and testing on animals should not continue. Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this.

(Words 278)

This animal testing essay would achieve a high score.

It fully answers all parts of the task - explaining the arguments ' for ' in the first paragraph and the arguments ' against ' in the next. Conclusions are then drawn with the writer giving their opinion in the conclusion.

It is thus very clearly organised, with each body paragraph having a central idea .

Ideas are also extended and supported by the use of reasons and some examples or further clarification. No ideas are left unclear or unexplained.

There is also some good topic related vocabulary in the animal testing essay such as 'life saving drugs ' and 'bred ' and a mix of complex sentences , such as adverbial clauses :

'Although it may improve the lives of humans, it is not fair that animals should suffer in order to achieve this'.

Noun clauses :

'...they feel that many tests are not really important'.

And relative clauses :

'...the animals which are used are not usually wild... '

Transitions are also used effectively to ensure there is good coherence and cohesion . For example, ' On the other hand.. ' indicates a change to discuss the contrasting ideas, and ' Therefore... " and ' As a consequence..' are used to give results.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More 'Hybrid' Type IELTS Essays:

Old Buildings Essay: How important is it to maintain & protect them?

This essay is about old buildings and whether they should be protected. It's an opinion essay, as you have to give your opinion on protecting old buildings.

Communication Technology Essay: How have relationships changed?

Communication Technology Essay for IELTS: This essay is about how relationships have been impacted. View a model answer with tips on how to answer the Task 2 Question.

Fear of Crime Essay: Can more be done to prevent crime?

In this fear of crime essay question for IELTS you have to discuss whether more can be down to prevent crime. It's an opinion type essay.

IELTS Essay: What influence do children’s friends have on them?

In this influence of children's friends essay for IELTS you have to discuss the way children's friends may affect their behaviour and what parents can do to control this.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Useful Language for IELTS Graphs

May 16, 24 04:44 AM

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

IELTS Essay: Loving Wildlife and Nature

May 10, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Animal Testing Essay Guide + Topics

Whether you are taking a position for or against animal testing in your essay, here are some helpful hacks, tips, and tricks you can use to ace your paper.

Animal testing is a controversial issue of global scope. However, with pandemics and outbreaks being a common phenomenon and the rise of the cosmetics industry, many animals are used in scientific research. Also known as in-vivo, animal experimentation, or animal research, animal testing entails using animals in different levels of experiments to investigate the reactions, performance, and potency of various medications, drugs, cosmetic products, and foods.

Use in both biological, medical, and now beauty studies, animal testing has gained comprehensive coverage. When writing persuasive or argumentative essays, you are likely to be given an animal testing research topic for your essay. The interest of commercial bodies and pharmaceutical companies and the ethics surrounding everything that occurs around us makes writing an animal testing argumentative or persuasive essay interesting.

When we asked 100 students who had ordered custom persuasive or argumentative animal testing essays from our website, they confessed that writing the essay only seems easy at its face value. However, it becomes complicated as they plan, conduct research, and write animal research papers. Do not fear, though because, you can either get an argumentative essay expert to write your essay or a model essay for you. Alternatively, use this guide to write a paper that will check all the boxes that your professor or instructor supposes you cannot.

What to include in your introduction?

When writing an animal testing introduction, avoid wasting too many words. Instead, write an introduction that attracts your readers, piques their interest, and keeps them glued to the end. This means that you should have: (a) hook , (b)background statement (where you explore the problem at hand), and (c) your animal-testing thesis statement.

Most of the top essay writers on our website revealed that they usually search for animal testing essay examples online for inspiration : it helps get a general atmosphere surrounding a controversial topic. With such a background, they can develop a thesis statement that defines their stance and the scope of their animal research essay.

Here are some excellent ideas for your first sentence or the hook:

• Statistics of animals killed annually for research
• Facts on animals are mostly used
• The position of the society
• Catchy facts
• Controversial statements on animal research
• Shocking facts about animal testing, e.g., Surprisingly, as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal reports, almost 100 million animals are killed in just the laboratories in the U.S. for research such as biology lessons, experimentation, food, drug, and cosmetic testing. Imagine how the statistics will skew upwards if we considered the entire world's population of animals killed every hour.
• Rhetorical questions : you use this to make the reader intrigued to read more about the topic. For example, Would you rather use a drug tested on a volunteer human or other animal-safe alternative research approaches, and one that is effective or use a drug tested on animals whose failure rate is slightly high? or Do you believe that morality should be enforced in medical research, especially when animal rights are infringed?

The background of your animal testing research paper introduction can include:

• Definition of animal testing
• The extent of animal testing.'
• The historical context of animal testing
• Breakthroughs of animal testing
• Expert opinion over animal testing
• Description of the problem
• The debate surrounding animal testing

Animal Testing Essay Outline/Structure

Your outline will depend on whether you are writing pro-animal testing or against animal testing research paper. Here is a generalized example of the outline for an animal testing essay.

A well-structured animal testing essay will automatically earn you marks. In most cases, it follows the conventional five-paragraph essay format divided into the introduction, main body, and conclusion.

The introduction and conclusion are each 10% of the word count, while the main body is 80%. You have to format your paper in APA, MLA, or Harvard format as your professor requires. To understand the formatting requirements, read the prompt and rubric of the animal testing essay keenly.

Remember to maintain a single idea per every body paragraph. That idea must reflect in the topic sentence of the paragraph to enable your audience to distinguish your major arguments.

The contents of the body paragraphs must also support the thesis. If there is a counterargument, make it known in your second last paragraph that precedes the conclusion.

Introduction

• 10% of the word count
• Begin with a stellar hook sentence
• Provide background to your chosen topic
• Have an outstanding thesis statement
• Transition to the main body of your essay
• Comprises 80% of the word count
• It can be three paragraphs for short essays or more for a long-form research paper
• Provide the history of animal testing, if necessary.
• Look at the roles of regulation and legislation in preventing animal cruelty.
• Explore the different bodies involved in preventing or lobbying against animal testing.
• Explore the breakthroughs of animal testing
• Explore the different alternatives to animal testing: why they can work or why they cannot
• Each paragraph should have its idea
• Transition to your conclusion
• Provide a summary of the paper
• Highlight your significant arguments and counterarguments
• Offer recommendations, if necessary
• Rephrase your thesis statement and show how evidence has supported it in your essay.

Alternative Methods to Animal Testing to include in your paper

Cruelty-Free International argues that non-animal testing methods are cheaper, reliable, and more effective. You can recommend some of these alternatives in your animal testing research paper or essay, considering they elongate the discussion on this seemingly controversial topic.

• Computer modeling
• Cell cultures
• Human tissues
• Volunteer studies
• Use of egg embryo
• Use of unicellular organisms
• The LAL tests
• In vitro methods

Now, when writing an argumentative essay about animal testing, especially if you take a stance against it, listing these alternatives can strengthen your arguments. Look at this model animal testing essay and craft yours along the same line.

Tips for Concluding your Animal Testing Essay

There is no different way to end an animal testing essay, as it is the same as ending any essay. Thus, when you read our cheat sheet for ending an argumentative essay , you will understand that the main thing is to have a definitive conclusion.

The conclusion is not the place to introduce new ideas. Instead, you will summarize the main points of the essay and restate the thesis in a revamped version. Show your writers the connection between your main arguments and the recommendations you are making. If there is a counterstatement, explain your rationale for it.

When writing the conclusion, make it clear, concise, and coherent. For example, an excellent animal-testing essay conclusion will have the introduction sentence, the summary of the main body, and the closing sentence.

Strive to leave your reader yearning for more : you get to tickle the best grades even from that stingy professor. Weave together the concluding paragraph with appropriate sentence transitions and do not overdo it. Keep everything simple, and you will win the main marks assigned to a reasonable conclusion.

Now that we have everything explained, we can look at some of the main topics you can use as titles for animal testing papers.

Examples of Controversial and Latest Animal Testing Essay Topics

We asked our top writers to suggest some topics they think fit well for an animal testing essay. We got a total of fifty entries that you can select and write something about. If you are stuck and want an essay sample urgently, we can write such an essay for you in a few hours, thanks to our website that helps students write essays ASAP . You can choose from these animal testing essay titles:

• Animal testing should be banned
• Animal testing is not ethical
• Pros and cons of animal testing
• Alternative methods to using animals in drugs development
• Controversy in using animal testing in medical and cosmetic research
• Neglected interests and inhuman practices during animal testing
• The cruelty of animal testing
• Horrors of animal testing
• Accidents during animal testing
• Ethics of transporting caged animals for animal research
• The future of animal testing, given the advancement in biotechnology
• Medical animal testing should be banned
• Should guinea pigs be used for lab work research?
• New, better, and innovative treatments for humanity
• Using animals in medical research is ethical and essential
• Science and the murder of one hundred million animals annually
• Importance of animals in clinical trials
• Importance of animal testing in vaccine development
• Is animal testing necessary for human survival?
• Animal testing as an experimentation industry
• Effectiveness of animal testing
• Exploring the role of Cruelty-Free International Organization
• Role of religious bodies in advocating for animal-testing-free society
• The Americans for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) organization
• Ethical issues in animal experimentation
• How animal cruelty affects the ecosystem
• Animal models in vaccine development
• Defining animal cruelty
• Treatment versus rights of animals
• Are animal model results safe for humans?
• Migraine Treatment and Animal testing
• Dinitrophenol drug for overweight and Animal testing
• Anti-arthritis Treatment and Animal Testing
• Animal use in unmanned war drones
• Positive and negative outcomes of animal testing
• Role of media in influencing animal testing
• The politics of deception in animal testing
• Problems associated with animal testing
• Animal testing should be controlled and not stopped
• Licenses that are required for one to conduct animal testing
• Role of Big Pharma in advancing animal testing.
• Can plants be used as an alternative to animal testing?
• Impacts of animal testing on ecology
• How does animal testing affect the economy?
• Can animal testing result in bioweapons?
• Use of technology to predict diseases and outcomes rather than animal testing.
• Are the rights and feelings of animals considered in animal experimentation?
• Are animals used in tests free?
• Reasons rats, rabbits, and pigs are widely used in animal testing
• Can volunteer human beings replace animals in medical research?
• The best approach to take care of animals used in experimentation
• Breakthroughs after animal testing
• Animal testing and the cosmetics industry
• History of animal testing
• Role of CDC in animal testing research
• Role of WHO on animal testing authorization

Where and how to get help with your Animal Testing Essays?

In our article, we have extensively referenced our custom essay writers who can help you ace your animal testing essays. If you feel that the guide cannot help you break down the essay or are short of time, you can pay someone on our website to write one for you. When you buy an argumentative essay from our website, we assign it to a pro writer who will research, draft, and write the paper from scratch.

Our bespoke essay service ensures that every paper is done as though you would have done it. This means that the writer cites every animal testing journal article, credible website, or relevant scholarly resources as you would have done. They do this when they summarize, paraphrase, or quote from the sources.

Therefore, you are guaranteed 100% original and plagiarism-free animal testing essays. Furthermore, whether you are for or against animal testing, we have a writer who can write your argumentative essay outline, annotated bibliography, research paper, and essay.

They can take an ethical stance or argue based on what society or professionals/experts think about the issue.

Trust us with your paper because we have done this time and again : written untraceable papers for students. Our writers are fast, accurate, respectable, and experienced. They know how to score the top grade on the rubric. All the papers we have done have been used as best argumentative essay samples on should animal testing be banned? yours could be the next one.

Are you a student with weak English and need help? Our ESL writers can craft a paper that sounds like someone who does not grasp English. Alternatively, our ENL writers also know how to tone down an English paper. After all, we serve both ESL and ENL clients. Go to our home page, click on order now, place your order and pay for it, and wait as we complete it for you.

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

Animal Testing Argumentative Essay: Guidelines

How to Write a Great Animal Testing Argumentative Essay?

Animal testing sample.

According to the statistical data, testing in the US is conducted on 26 million animals. Those animals are used for research in the field of commercial products and various scientific advancements. Besides, animals are used to test the latest medical treatment, check on the toxicity of drugs, and verify the level of safety that the products aimed at people will have. Animal testing is also in demand in the commercial industry and the area of health care. Since it is an issue of intense arguments whether it is ethically correct to use the animals in experiments, an animal testing argumentative essay is among the most popular topics at schools, colleges, and universities.

The idea to use animals in experiments is not new. Actually, it is a practice that dates back to 500 BC; and even at that time, there were those who supported this idea and those who were against it. The latter claim that it is cruel and inhumane to test the products using animals, and they call for the development of the new alternative techniques which will eliminate the need for animal testing.

Such organizations as PETA campaign in order to increase the range of relevant research and make the process of developing alternative testing methods faster and more efficient. It is reasonable that an animal testing essay of a student who supports this point of view will state the requirement to alleviate testing on animals. It will also contain an argument that animal testing does not ensure absolutely valid results as tests conducted on animals are different from those done to humans; that is why the question is whether animal testing has any practical sense at all.

Good Argumentative Essay Topics

On the other hand, an argumentative essay on animal testing can be written from the point of view of the advantages of the use of animals in medicine. It is wrong to hurt living beings, but it is necessary to test the safety of new products before using them for the benefit of people. Typically, rats are the first animals used for research. In case the tests prove to be effective, monkeys are the next subjects for a series of tests. Only if these experiments are successful, the product can be given to people.

An animal testing argumentative essay always mentions the benefit of reducing the number of errors and fatal mistakes owing to a round of tests on animals. It also mentions that the number of saved people’s lives is enormous owing to the sacrificed lives of animals. Actually, there is hardly any effective alternative to animal testing. Furthermore, it is subject to following strict regulations to ensure the prevention of all kinds of animal mistreatment.

In general, the debates over the use of animals in testing for medical research testing have been historically known for centuries. After the animal testing essay introduction, it is typical to present the claims of the proponents. They imply that there is no intentional harm in animal testing; moreover, the animals are well kept, fed, and treated nicely. Besides, they state that the absence of effective alternatives makes it impossible to eliminate this practice. They also emphasize the benefit of saving lives owing to animal testing. Nevertheless, certain environmental organizations aimed at the protection of animals call for no more animals in research and testing because of the cruel and inhumane practices.

Writing an animal testing argumentative essay outline , one should take into consideration that animal testing is a matter of various discussions. Thus, it is important to choose a certain position and focus the whole assignment on this point of view. A common task for the students is to work on an argumentative paper; thus, it is essential to determine and specify a definite position and then develop a thesis statement with the supporting arguments appropriately. For instance, if you make up your mind to look at the animal testing from the angle of supporting position, it is recommended to use the following arguments or similar ones.

Writing Prompts for Animal Testing Essays

Advantages to Write About in Animal Testing Essay

It is impossible to eliminate animal testing as it saves people’s lives.

According to medical researchers, the contribution of testing on animals in the advancement of health care and medicine cannot be overestimated. It is owing to the experiments conducted on animals, people can be treated for breast cancer, tuberculosis, diabetics, malaria, brain injury, and other diseases. Physicians also emphasize the role of chimpanzees in experiments aimed at looking for treatment for Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C.

There Is No Alternative to Experimenting with Animals Because Its the Safest Testing Method Known

An animal testing essay conclusion always refers to the fact that the structure of animals’ organisms that resembles that of humans makes them the most suitable material for research in product testing in the fields of medicine and cosmetics. Animal and human bodies have identical or similar processes. There is an assumption that testing can be conducted on cell organisms, but it is doubtful that it will work, as those tissues cannot be tested for blindness or blood pressure issues.

Currently, animal testing is used as a model for computer programs that will probably substitute it in the future. The provided data prove to be accurate; however, living organisms cannot be replaced with less complex computer programs that do not ensure stimulation of the brain activity.

The Biological Similarity between Animal Species and People Is the Best

The organs of the mammals are identical to those of people; besides, there is a striking genetic closeness between them. The statistical data prove that the genetic similarity between the people and mammals can be up to 98%. Animals have the same bloodstream and central nervous systems with humans; that is why the susceptibility to diseases of both of them is similar.

Client's Review

" Recently I strongly needed professional help with writing a nursing essay. I decided to order one from the Elite Writing service. The essay was done on time without any problems. I am grateful for the help. "

Nataniel C. reviewed EliteWritings on January 24, 2019, via SiteJabber Click to see the original review on an external website.

Ethical Side of Animal Testing

Each essay about animal testing contains an argument about checking of medical treatment for toxicity during the animal testing procedures. It is against all ethical norms to test a new medicine on people and risk their lives. Helsinki Medical Association claims that animal testing should always go before human experiments

Additional Benefits for Animals

As a result of vaccine testing on animals, not only people but animals are saved from terminal diseases. Besides, the development of new medical products contributes to the prevention of species extinction.

Animal Testing Has the Strict Regulations

Various animal testing essay examples demonstrate that there are strict regulations for experimenting with animals nowadays. A topical issue of present-day life is the protection of animal rights, and numerous organizations control the situation. It is important to make sure that there is neither violation of animal rights not the suffering of animals from abuse.

Further Advantages of Animal Testing

The life cycles of animals are shorter than those of people; thus, the experiments on them are more reasonable than those on humans. It is possible to observe all consequences and effects of certain drugs owing to short life cycles in the course of several years or even months.

Animal Testing Implies Humane Treatment

Some students even use the fact of humane treatment of animals in the animal testing essay title. Researchers always take into account the conditions and consequences of experiments and care about animals.

Disadvantages to Write About in Animal Testing Essay

A variety of animal testing essay topics implies considering different opinions of the pros and cons of those experiments. It is important to ensure the presence of alternative ideas to prevent all kinds of bias and ensure having different perspectives on the same issue.

Human societies have always been oriented at innovation and adaptability as desired features. On the other hand, old practices have the tendency of being kept by the researchers and organizations for a number of reasons. In an animal testing argumentative essay, the aspects should be explored in detail.

First of all, let us talk about the benefits.

Ethics in Animal Testing

If the essay is written in support of animal testing, this is one of the easiest points. Animals used for testing lack moral capabilities and conscious mind despite having their DNA equal to the human one in 98 %. A good animal testing essay title always mentions this somehow. Nevertheless, animals suffer and their agony can lead to death in some serious cases.

Try to explore the issues philosophically. Touch upon attributing value to people and animals. Mention the patients with mental illnesses who have no morality or consciousness. Consider the appropriateness of experimenting on such people along with the animals.

An efficient animal testing pros and cons essay should be based on a broad topic and numerous implications for analysis.

Availability of Alternatives

The progress cannot be stopped in the present-day world. It is normal now to get rid of outdated things and introduce innovations. In a perfect why animal testing should be banned essay, try to note that there are and there will be other ways to experiment on new products. For example, it is possible to cultivate human cells and do organ replication in the laboratories to use the obtained organs for testing of biological processes.

Right, all challenges in modern research cannot be addressed via cell testing; besides, the immune system, endocrine system, blood pressure issues and other aspects of the human body cannot be analyzed using cells. On the other hand, testing practices in the laboratories can substitute some animal alternatives, if possible.

" Cool website for students who have problems with academic papers! "

Brian reviewed EliteWritings on November 14, 2019, via TrustPilot Click to see the original review on an external website.

Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement

The mentioned three RRRs (reduction, refinement, and replacement) represent a plan developed by numerous countries to ensure the decrease in the testing with the use of animals. A cosmetic animal testing essay should contain this argument for explanations of why it is important to eradicate the common practice.

• What is the reduction ?

It is the minimization of the animal testing practice by research centers, laboratories, and companies, and regulation of the affected living creatures via introducing innovative practices and improving the experimental techniques.

• What is refinement ?

It is changing the lives of tested animals, ensuring good living conditions, the introduction of obligatory anesthesia, and the provision of necessary medical treatment.

• What is the replacement ?

It is a procedure of transition to innovative methods of conducting experiments with the use of computers, cell culture, micro-dosing by volunteers, human tissue tissues, and other methods.

Overrating of the Contribution

An argument that animal testing should be illegal is used by numerous researchers against the current testing practices. The supporters of the theory cite examples to prove the inevitability of animal experiments for the progress of humans. Nevertheless, it is complicated to make a prediction on how the discoveries can be made without animal testing, but the ideas of progress cannot be based on outdated practices.

It cannot be denied that the development of insulin was made owing to the dogs that had pancreases injected. On the other hand, a medical student from Germany, Paul Langerhans, saw the strange pancreatic tissue cells and encouraged Frederick Banting to make a discovery without any animal testing. Thus, there is a question of whether the disadvantages of animal testing outweigh the benefits obtained. The use of dogs sped up the process but kills many innocent animals. Insulin helped many people survive, but it is complicated to determine how the studies will be affected by animal testing results.

Insufficient Reliability

The efficiency of the animal tests on people is 95% because of the 2% genome divergence between animals and people. The European Union banned the use of animals in testing cosmetics for two reasons. Firstly, the eyes of humans are less sensitive than the eyes of rats and some other animals, thus the experiment results are unreliable. Secondly, other alternatives, for example, tissue testing, can be more effective.

Some researchers claim that animal testing should be allowed, but insufficient reliability may result in tragedies. For instance, tension, anxiety, and insomnia were treated with thalidomide medication in West Germany, and in 1957, as many as 5,000 infants died, and many lost sights, hearing or suffered severe deformities. It is not always right to use the products suitable for animals on humans. Another example is Rezulin that was a trigger of liver failure in people but treated rats with diabetes type 2 perfectly.

High Price of Animal Tests

It is common to pay no attention to this fact. It is assumed that more innovative technology will be even more expensive; however, progress always implies durability, and that should be noted. Financial losses are huge even for common dissection classes. Reliable results require numerous life forms, but computer models can use the required data for analysis in a different way.

Leaving out the Rights

The governments adopted a number of regulations in different countries of the world to ensure the protection of animals’ rights; however, it is a common practice to forget about the animals used for testing when it goes about laws.

Thinking about a good title for an essay on animal testing for medical purposes, do not forget to take into consideration this debatable point. How can it happen that the Animal Welfare Act omits fish, mice, and rats? The researchers are allowed to treat those animals in the way they need for their experiments. Try to explore how moral this situation is.

Global Progress

Your essay should emphasize the crucial importance of certain practices and lack of alternatives; however, it is also essential to touch upon the better options, available now o expected in the future. Every year, the development of technologies causes the emergence of new experimenting methods, making science more efficient and more humane. Mention the subjective opinions of the researchers and limitations of the control samples when talking about animal testing. On the other hand, note the advantages of new computer models that avoid bias and manipulation of data. Animals are less close to people than in cell cultures. All in all, it is more ethical to try alternative testing techniques as they not only protect the animals but also increase the efficiency of science.

Order Custom Essay Writing Services at EliteWritings.com

Please notice.

Some text in the modal.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Cambridge Open

The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation

Nonhuman animal (“animal”) experimentation is typically defended by arguments that it is reliable, that animals provide sufficiently good models of human biology and diseases to yield relevant information, and that, consequently, its use provides major human health benefits. I demonstrate that a growing body of scientific literature critically assessing the validity of animal experimentation generally (and animal modeling specifically) raises important concerns about its reliability and predictive value for human outcomes and for understanding human physiology. The unreliability of animal experimentation across a wide range of areas undermines scientific arguments in favor of the practice. Additionally, I show how animal experimentation often significantly harms humans through misleading safety studies, potential abandonment of effective therapeutics, and direction of resources away from more effective testing methods. The resulting evidence suggests that the collective harms and costs to humans from animal experimentation outweigh potential benefits and that resources would be better invested in developing human-based testing methods.

Introduction

Annually, more than 115 million animals are used worldwide in experimentation or to supply the biomedical industry. 1 Nonhuman animal (hereafter “animal”) experimentation falls under two categories: basic (i.e., investigation of basic biology and human disease) and applied (i.e., drug research and development and toxicity and safety testing). Regardless of its categorization, animal experimentation is intended to inform human biology and health sciences and to promote the safety and efficacy of potential treatments. Despite its use of immense resources, the animal suffering involved, and its impact on human health, the question of animal experimentation’s efficacy has been subjected to little systematic scrutiny. 2

Although it is widely accepted that medicine should be evidence based , animal experimentation as a means of informing human health has generally not been held, in practice, to this standard. This fact makes it surprising that animal experimentation is typically viewed as the default and gold standard of preclinical testing and is generally supported without critical examination of its validity. A survey published in 2008 of anecdotal cases and statements given in support of animal experimentation demonstrates how it has not and could not be validated as a necessary step in biomedical research, and the survey casts doubt on its predictive value. 3 I show that animal experimentation is poorly predictive of human outcomes, 4 that it is unreliable across a wide category of disease areas, 5 and that existing literature demonstrates the unreliability of animal experimentation, thereby undermining scientific arguments in its favor. I further show that the collective harms that result from an unreliable practice tip the ethical scale of harms and benefits against continuation in much, if not all, of experimentation involving animals. 6

Problems of Successful Translation to Humans of Data from Animal Experimentation

Although the unreliability and limitations of animal experimentation have increasingly been acknowledged, there remains a general confidence within much of the biomedical community that they can be overcome. 7 However, three major conditions undermine this confidence and explain why animal experimentation, regardless of the disease category studied, fails to reliably inform human health: (1) the effects of the laboratory environment and other variables on study outcomes, (2) disparities between animal models of disease and human diseases, and (3) species differences in physiology and genetics. I argue for the critical importance of each of these conditions.

The Influence of Laboratory Procedures and Environments on Experimental Results

Laboratory procedures and conditions exert influences on animals’ physiology and behaviors that are difficult to control and that can ultimately impact research outcomes. Animals in laboratories are involuntarily placed in artificial environments, usually in windowless rooms, for the duration of their lives. Captivity and the common features of biomedical laboratories—such as artificial lighting, human-produced noises, and restricted housing environments—can prevent species-typical behaviors, causing distress and abnormal behaviors among animals. 8 Among the types of laboratory-generated distress is the phenomenon of contagious anxiety. 9 Cortisone levels rise in monkeys watching other monkeys being restrained for blood collection. 10 Blood pressure and heart rates elevate in rats watching other rats being decapitated. 11 Routine laboratory procedures, such as catching an animal and removing him or her from the cage, in addition to the experimental procedures, cause significant and prolonged elevations in animals’ stress markers. 12 These stress-related changes in physiological parameters caused by the laboratory procedures and environments can have significant effects on test results. 13 Stressed rats, for example, develop chronic inflammatory conditions and intestinal leakage, which add variables that can confound data. 14

A variety of conditions in the laboratory cause changes in neurochemistry, genetic expression, and nerve regeneration. 15 In one study, for example, mice were genetically altered to develop aortic defects. Yet, when the mice were housed in larger cages, those defects almost completely disappeared. 16 Providing further examples, typical noise levels in laboratories can damage blood vessels in animals, and even the type of flooring on which animals are tested in spinal cord injury experiments can affect whether a drug shows a benefit. 17

In order to control for potential confounders, some investigators have called for standardization of laboratory settings and procedures. 18 One notable effort was made by Crabbe et al. in their investigation of the potential confounding influences of the laboratory environment on six mouse behaviors that are commonly studied in neurobehavioral experiments. Despite their “extraordinary lengths to equate test apparatus, testing protocols, and all possible features of animal husbandry” across three laboratories, there were systematic differences in test results in these labs. 19 Additionally, different mouse strains varied markedly in all behavioral tests, and for some tests the magnitude of genetic differences depended on the specific testing laboratory. The results suggest that there are important influences of environmental conditions and procedures specific to individual laboratories that can be difficult—perhaps even impossible—to eliminate. These influences can confound research results and impede extrapolation to humans.

The Discordance between Human Diseases and Animal Models of Diseases

The lack of sufficient congruence between animal models and human diseases is another significant obstacle to translational reliability. Human diseases are typically artificially induced in animals, but the enormous difficulty of reproducing anything approaching the complexity of human diseases in animal models limits their usefulness. 20 Even if the design and conduct of an animal experiment are sound and standardized, the translation of its results to the clinic may fail because of disparities between the animal experimental model and the human condition. 21

Stroke research presents one salient example of the difficulties in modeling human diseases in animals. Stroke is relatively well understood in its underlying pathology. Yet accurately modeling the disease in animals has proven to be an exercise in futility. To address the inability to replicate human stroke in animals, many assert the need to use more standardized animal study design protocols. This includes the use of animals who represent both genders and wide age ranges, who have comorbidities and preexisting conditions that occur naturally in humans, and who are consequently given medications that are indicated for human patients. 22 In fact, a set of guidelines, named STAIR, was implemented by a stroke roundtable in 1999 (and updated in 2009) to standardize protocols, limit the discrepancies, and improve the applicability of animal stroke experiments to humans. 23 One of the most promising stroke treatments later to emerge was NXY-059, which proved effective in animal experiments. However, the drug failed in clinical trials, despite the fact that the set of animal experiments on this drug was considered the poster child for the new experimental standards. 24 Despite such vigorous efforts, the development of STAIR and other criteria has yet to make a recognizable impact in clinical translation. 25

Under closer scrutiny, it is not difficult to surmise why animal stroke experiments fail to successfully translate to humans even with new guidelines. Standard stroke medications will likely affect different species differently. There is little evidence to suggest that a female rat, dog, or monkey sufficiently reproduces the physiology of a human female. Perhaps most importantly, reproducing the preexisting conditions of stroke in animals proves just as difficult as reproducing stroke pathology and outcomes. For example, most animals don’t naturally develop significant atherosclerosis, a leading contributor to ischemic stroke. In order to reproduce the effects of atherosclerosis in animals, researchers clamp their blood vessels or artificially insert blood clots. These interventions, however, do not replicate the elaborate pathology of atherosclerosis and its underlying causes. Reproducing human diseases in animals requires reproducing the predisposing diseases, also a formidable challenge. The inability to reproduce the disease in animals so that it is congruent in relevant respects with human stroke has contributed to a high failure rate in drug development. More than 114 potential therapies initially tested in animals failed in human trials. 26

Further examples of repeated failures based on animal models include drug development in cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), traumatic brain injury (TBI), Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and inflammatory conditions. Animal cancer models in which tumors are artificially induced have been the basic translational model used to study key physiological and biochemical properties in cancer onset and propagation and to evaluate novel treatments. Nevertheless, significant limitations exist in the models’ ability to faithfully mirror the complex process of human carcinogenesis. 27 These limitations are evidenced by the high (among the highest of any disease category) clinical failure rate of cancer drugs. 28 Analyses of common mice ALS models demonstrate significant differences from human ALS. 29 The inability of animal ALS models to predict beneficial effects in humans with ALS is recognized. 30 More than twenty drugs have failed in clinical trials, and the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drug to treat ALS is Riluzole, which shows notably marginal benefit on patient survival. 31 Animal models have also been unable to reproduce the complexities of human TBI. 32 In 2010, Maas et al. reported on 27 large Phase 3 clinical trials and 6 unpublished trials in TBI that all failed to show human benefit after showing benefit in animals. 33 Additionally, even after success in animals, around 172 and 150 drug development failures have been identified in the treatment of human AD 34 and inflammatory diseases, 35 respectively.

The high clinical failure rate in drug development across all disease categories is based, at least in part, on the inability to adequately model human diseases in animals and the poor predictability of animal models. 36 A notable systematic review, published in 2007, compared animal experimentation results with clinical trial findings across interventions aimed at the treatment of head injury, respiratory distress syndrome, osteoporosis, stroke, and hemorrhage. 37 The study found that the human and animal results were in accordance only half of the time. In other words, the animal experiments were no more likely than a flip of the coin to predict whether those interventions would benefit humans.

In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. 38 More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent. 39 The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests. 40

Usually, when an animal model is found wanting, various reasons are proffered to explain what went wrong—poor methodology, publication bias, lack of preexisting disease and medications, wrong gender or age, and so on. These factors certainly require consideration, and recognition of each potential difference between the animal model and the human disease motivates renewed efforts to eliminate these differences. As a result, scientific progress is sometimes made by such efforts. However, the high failure rate in drug testing and development, despite attempts to improve animal testing, suggests that these efforts remain insufficient to overcome the obstacles to successful translation that are inherent to the use of animals. Too often ignored is the well-substantiated idea that these models are, for reasons summarized here, intrinsically lacking in relevance to, and thus highly unlikely to yield useful information about, human diseases. 41

Interspecies Differences in Physiology and Genetics

Ultimately, even if considerable congruence were shown between an animal model and its corresponding human disease, interspecies differences in physiology, behavior, pharmacokinetics, and genetics would significantly limit the reliability of animal studies, even after a substantial investment to improve such studies. In spinal cord injury, for example, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of numerous interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior. 42 The micropathology of spinal cord injury, injury repair mechanisms, and recovery from injury varies greatly among different strains of rats and mice. A systematic review found that even among the most standardized and methodologically superior animal experiments, testing results assessing the effectiveness of methylprednisolone for spinal cord injury treatment varied considerably among species. 43 This suggests that factors inherent to the use of animals account for some of the major differences in results.

Even rats from the same strain but purchased from different suppliers produce different test results. 44 In one study, responses to 12 different behavioral measures of pain sensitivity, which are important markers of spinal cord injury, varied among 11 strains of mice, with no clear-cut patterns that allowed prediction of how each strain would respond. 45 These differences influenced how the animals responded to the injury and to experimental therapies. A drug might be shown to help one strain of mice recover but not another. Despite decades of using animal models, not a single neuroprotective agent that ameliorated spinal cord injury in animal tests has proven efficacious in clinical trials to date. 46

Further exemplifying the importance of physiological differences among species, a 2013 study reported that the mouse models used extensively to study human inflammatory diseases (in sepsis, burns, infection, and trauma) have been misleading. The study found that mice differ greatly from humans in their responses to inflammatory conditions. Mice differed from humans in what genes were turned on and off and in the timing and duration of gene expression. The mouse models even differed from one another in their responses. The investigators concluded that “our study supports higher priority to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory disease.” 47 The different genetic responses between mice and humans are likely responsible, at least in part, for the high drug failure rate. The authors stated that every one of almost 150 clinical trials that tested candidate agents’ ability to block inflammatory responses in critically ill patients failed.

Wide differences have also become apparent in the regulation of the same genes, a point that is readily seen when observing differences between human and mouse livers. 48 Consistent phenotypes (observable physical or biochemical characteristics) are rarely obtained by modification of the same gene, even among different strains of mice. 49 Gene regulation can substantially differ among species and may be as important as the presence or absence of a specific gene. Despite the high degree of genome conservation, there are critical differences in the order and function of genes among species. To use an analogy: as pianos have the same keys, humans and other animals share (largely) the same genes. Where we mostly differ is in the way the genes or keys are expressed. For example, if we play the keys in a certain order, we hear Chopin; in a different order, we hear Ray Charles; and in yet a different order, it’s Jerry Lee Lewis. In other words, the same keys or genes are expressed, but their different orders result in markedly different outcomes.

Recognizing the inherent genetic differences among species as a barrier to translation, researches have expressed considerable enthusiasm for genetically modified (GM) animals, including transgenic mice models, wherein human genes are inserted into the mouse genome. However, if a human gene is expressed in mice, it will likely function differently from the way it functions in humans, being affected by physiological mechanisms that are unique in mice. For example, a crucial protein that controls blood sugar in humans is missing in mice. 50 When the human gene that makes this protein was expressed in genetically altered mice, it had the opposite effect from that in humans: it caused loss of blood sugar control in mice. Use of GM mice has failed to successfully model human diseases and to translate into clinical benefit across many disease categories. 51 Perhaps the primary reason why GM animals are unlikely to be much more successful than other animal models in translational medicine is the fact that the “humanized” or altered genes are still in nonhuman animals.

In many instances, nonhuman primates (NHPs) are used instead of mice or other animals, with the expectation that NHPs will better mimic human results. However, there have been sufficient failures in translation to undermine this optimism. For example, NHP models have failed to reproduce key features of Parkinson’s disease, both in function and in pathology. 52 Several therapies that appeared promising in both NHPs and rat models of Parkinson’s disease showed disappointing results in humans. 53 The campaign to prescribe hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in millions of women to prevent cardiovascular disease was based in large part on experiments on NHPs. HRT is now known to increase the risk of these diseases in women. 54

HIV/AIDS vaccine research using NHPs represents one of the most notable failures in animal experimentation translation. Immense resources and decades of time have been devoted to creating NHP (including chimpanzee) models of HIV. Yet all of about 90 HIV vaccines that succeeded in animals failed in humans. 55 After HIV vaccine gp120 failed in clinical trials, despite positive outcomes in chimpanzees, a BMJ article commented that important differences between NHPs and humans with HIV misled researchers, taking them down unproductive experimental paths. 56 Gp120 failed to neutralize HIV grown and tested in cell culture. However, because the serum protected chimpanzees from HIV infection, two Phase 3 clinical trials were undertaken 57 —a clear example of how expectations that NHP data are more predictive than data from other (in this case, cell culture) testing methods are unproductive and harmful. Despite the repeated failures, NHPs (though not chimpanzees or other great apes) remain widely used for HIV research.

The implicit assumption that NHP (and indeed any animal) data are reliable has also led to significant and unjustifiable human suffering. For example, clinical trial volunteers for gp120 were placed at unnecessary risk of harm because of unfounded confidence in NHP experiments. Two landmark studies involving thousands of menopausal women being treated with HRT were terminated early because of increased stroke and breast cancer risk. 58 In 2003, Elan Pharmaceuticals was forced to prematurely terminate a Phase 2 clinical trial when an investigational AD vaccine was found to cause brain swelling in human subjects. No significant adverse effects were detected in GM mice or NHPs. 59

In another example of human suffering resulting from animal experimentation, six human volunteers were injected with an immunomodulatory drug, TGN 1412, in 2006. 60 Within minutes of receiving the experimental drug, all volunteers suffered a severe adverse reaction resulting from a life-threatening cytokine storm that led to catastrophic systemic organ failure. The compound was designed to dampen the immune system, but it had the opposite effect in humans. Prior to this first human trial, TGN 1412 was tested in mice, rabbits, rats, and NHPs with no ill effects. NHPs also underwent repeat-dose toxicity studies and were given 500 times the human dose for at least four consecutive weeks. 61 None of the NHPs manifested the ill effects that humans showed almost immediately after receiving minute amounts of the test drug. Cynomolgus and rhesus monkeys were specifically chosen because their CD28 receptors demonstrated similar affinity to TGN 1412 as human CD28 receptors. Based on such data as these, it was confidently concluded that results obtained from these NHPs would most reliably predict drug responses in humans—a conclusion that proved devastatingly wrong.

As exemplified by the study of HIV/AIDS, TGN 1412, and other experiences, 62 experiments with NHPs are not necessarily any more predictive of human responses than experiments with other animals. The repeated failures in translation from studies with NHPs belie arguments favoring use of any nonhuman species to study human physiology and diseases and to test potential treatments. If experimentation using chimpanzees and other NHPs, our closest genetic cousins, are unreliable, how can we expect research using other animals to be reliable? The bottom line is that animal experiments, no matter the species used or the type of disease research undertaken, are highly unreliable—and they have too little predictive value to justify the resultant risks of harms for humans, for reasons I now explain.

The Collective Harms That Result from Misleading Animal Experiments

As medical research has explored the complexities and subtle nuances of biological systems, problems have arisen because the differences among species along these subtler biological dimensions far outweigh the similarities , as a growing body of evidence attests. These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail. 63

“Appreciation of differences” and “caution” about extrapolating results from animals to humans are now almost universally recommended. But, in practice, how does one take into account differences in drug metabolism, genetics, expression of diseases, anatomy, influences of laboratory environments, and species- and strain-specific physiologic mechanisms—and, in view of these differences, discern what is applicable to humans and what is not? If we cannot determine which physiological mechanisms in which species and strains of species are applicable to humans (even setting aside the complicating factors of different caging systems and types of flooring), the usefulness of the experiments must be questioned.

It has been argued that some information obtained from animal experiments is better than no information. 64 This thesis neglects how misleading information can be worse than no information from animal tests. The use of nonpredictive animal experiments can cause human suffering in at least two ways: (1) by producing misleading safety and efficacy data and (2) by causing potential abandonment of useful medical treatments and misdirecting resources away from more effective testing methods.

Humans are harmed because of misleading animal testing results. Imprecise results from animal experiments may result in clinical trials of biologically faulty or even harmful substances, thereby exposing patients to unnecessary risk and wasting scarce research resources. 65 Animal toxicity studies are poor predictors of toxic effects of drugs in humans. 66 As seen in some of the preceding examples (in particular, stroke, HRT, and TGN1412), humans have been significantly harmed because investigators were misled by the safety and efficacy profile of a new drug based on animal experiments. 67 Clinical trial volunteers are thus provided with raised hopes and a false sense of security because of a misguided confidence in efficacy and safety testing using animals.

An equal if indirect source of human suffering is the opportunity cost of abandoning promising drugs because of misleading animal tests. 68 As candidate drugs generally proceed down the development pipeline and to human testing based largely on successful results in animals 69 (i.e., positive efficacy and negative adverse effects), drugs are sometimes not further developed due to unsuccessful results in animals (i.e., negative efficacy and/or positive adverse effects). Because much pharmaceutical company preclinical data are proprietary and thus publicly unavailable, it is difficult to know the number of missed opportunities due to misleading animal experiments. However, of every 5,000–10,000 potential drugs investigated, only about 5 proceed to Phase 1 clinical trials. 70 Potential therapeutics may be abandoned because of results in animal tests that do not apply to humans. 71 Treatments that fail to work or show some adverse effect in animals because of species-specific influences may be abandoned in preclinical testing even if they may have proved effective and safe in humans if allowed to continue through the drug development pipeline.

An editorial in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery describes cases involving two drugs in which animal test results from species-specific influences could have derailed their development. In particular, it describes how tamoxifen, one of the most effective drugs for certain types of breast cancer, “would most certainly have been withdrawn from the pipeline” if its propensity to cause liver tumor in rats had been discovered in preclinical testing rather than after the drug had been on the market for years. 72 Gleevec provides another example of effective drugs that could have been abandoned based on misleading animal tests: this drug, which is used to treat chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), showed serious adverse effects in at least five species tested, including severe liver damage in dogs. However, liver toxicity was not detected in human cell assays, and clinical trials proceeded, which confirmed the absence of significant liver toxicity in humans. 73 Fortunately for CML patients, Gleevec is a success story of predictive human-based testing. Many useful drugs that have safely been used by humans for decades, such as aspirin and penicillin, may not have been available today if the current animal testing regulatory requirements were in practice during their development. 74

A further example of near-missed opportunities is provided by experiments on animals that delayed the acceptance of cyclosporine, a drug widely and successfully used to treat autoimmune disorders and prevent organ transplant rejection. 75 Its immunosuppressive effects differed so markedly among species that researchers judged that the animal results limited any direct inferences that could be made to humans. Providing further examples, PharmaInformatic released a report describing how several blockbuster drugs, including aripiprazole (Abilify) and esomeprazole (Nexium), showed low oral bioavailability in animals. They would likely not be available on the market today if animal tests were solely relied on. Understanding the implications of its findings for drug development in general, PharmaInformatic asked, “Which other blockbuster drugs would be on the market today, if animal trials would have not been used to preselect compounds and drug-candidates for further development?” 76 These near-missed opportunities and the overall 96 percent failure rate in clinical drug testing strongly suggest the unsoundness of animal testing as a precondition of human clinical trials and provide powerful evidence for the need for a new, human-based paradigm in medical research and drug development.

In addition to potentially causing abandonment of useful treatments, use of an invalid animal disease model can lead researchers and the industry in the wrong research direction, wasting time and significant investment. 77 Repeatedly, researchers have been lured down the wrong line of investigation because of information gleaned from animal experiments that later proved to be inaccurate, irrelevant, or discordant with human biology. Some claim that we do not know which benefits animal experiments, particularly in basic research, may provide down the road. Yet human lives remain in the balance, waiting for effective therapies. Funding must be strategically invested in the research areas that offer the most promise.

The opportunity costs of continuing to fund unreliable animal tests may impede development of more accurate testing methods. Human organs grown in the lab, human organs on a chip, cognitive computing technologies, 3D printing of human living tissues, and the Human Toxome Project are examples of new human-based technologies that are garnering widespread enthusiasm. The benefit of using these testing methods in the preclinical setting over animal experiments is that they are based on human biology. Thus their use eliminates much of the guesswork required when attempting to extrapolate physiological data from other species to humans. Additionally, these tests offer whole-systems biology, in contrast to traditional in vitro techniques. Although they are gaining momentum, these human-based tests are still in their relative infancy, and funding must be prioritized for their further development. The recent advancements made in the development of more predictive, human-based systems and biological approaches in chemical toxicological testing are an example of how newer and improved tests have been developed because of a shift in prioritization. 78 Apart from toxicology, though, financial investment in the development of human-based technologies generally falls far short of investment in animal experimentation. 79

The unreliability of applying animal experimental results to human biology and diseases is increasingly recognized. Animals are in many respects biologically and psychologically similar to humans, perhaps most notably in the shared characteristics of pain, fear, and suffering. 80 In contrast, evidence demonstrates that critically important physiological and genetic differences between humans and other animals can invalidate the use of animals to study human diseases, treatments, pharmaceuticals, and the like. In significant measure, animal models specifically, and animal experimentation generally, are inadequate bases for predicting clinical outcomes in human beings in the great bulk of biomedical science. As a result, humans can be subject to significant and avoidable harm.

The data showing the unreliability of animal experimentation and the resultant harms to humans (and nonhumans) undermine long-standing claims that animal experimentation is necessary to enhance human health and therefore ethically justified. Rather, they demonstrate that animal experimentation poses significant costs and harms to human beings. It is possible—as I have argued elsewhere—that animal research is more costly and harmful, on the whole, than it is beneficial to human health. 81 When considering the ethical justifiability of animal experiments, we should ask if it is ethically acceptable to deprive humans of resources, opportunity, hope, and even their lives by seeking answers in what may be the wrong place. In my view, it would be better to direct resources away from animal experimentation and into developing more accurate, human-based technologies.

Aysha Akhtar , M.D., M.P.H., is a neurologist and preventive medicine specialist and Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, Oxford, United Kingdom.

1. Taylor K, Gordon N, Langley G, Higgins W. Estimates for worldwide laboratory animal use in 2005 . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :327–42. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

2. Systematic reviews that have been conducted generally reveal the unreliability and poor predictability of animal tests. See Perel P, Roberts I, Sena E, Wheble P, Briscoe C, Sandercock P, et al. Comparison of treatment effects between animal experiments and clinical trials: Systematic review. BMJ 2007;334:197. See also Pound P, Bracken MB. Is animal research sufficiently evidence based to be a cornerstone of biomedical research? BMJ 2014;348:g3387. See Godlee F. How predictive and productive is animal research? BMJ 2014;348:g3719. See Benatar M. Lost in translation: Treatment trials in the SOD 1 mouse and in human ALS. Neurobiology Disease 2007; 26 :1–13 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Akhtar AZ, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal studies in spinal cord injury: A systematic review of methylprednisolone . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 :43–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

3. Mathews RAJ. Medical progress depends on animal models—doesn’t it? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2008; 101 :95–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

4. See Shanks N, Greek R, Greek J. Are animal models predictive for humans? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2009; 4 :2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Wall RJ, Shani M. Are animal models as good as we think? Theriogenology 2008; 69 :2–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

5. See note 3, Mathews 2008. See also Hartung T, Zurlo J. Food for thought… alternative approaches for medical countermeasures to biological and chemical terrorism and warfare . ALTEX 2012; 29 :251–60 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Leist M, Hartung T. Inflammatory findings on species extrapolations: Humans are definitely no 70-kg mice . Archives in Toxicology 2013; 87 :563–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Mak IWY, Evaniew N, Ghert M. Lost in translation: Animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment . American Journal in Translational Research 2014; 6 :114–18 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Pippin J. Animal research in medical sciences: Seeking a convergence of science, medicine, and animal law . South Texas Law Review 2013; 54 :469–511. [ Google Scholar ]

6. For an overview of the harms-versus-benefits argument, see LaFollette H. Animal experimentation in biomedical research In: Beauchamp TL, Frey RG, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics . Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011:812–18. [ Google Scholar ]

7. See Jucker M. The benefits and limitations of animal models for translational research in neurodegenerative diseases . Nature Medicine 2010; 16 :1210–14 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Institute of Medicine. Improving the Utility and Translation of Animal Models for Nervous System Disorders: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013. And see Degryse AL, Lawson WE. Progress towards improving animal models for IPF . American Journal of Medical Science 2011; 341 :444–9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

8. See Morgan KN, Tromborg CT. Sources of stress in captivity . Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007; 102 :262–302 [ Google Scholar ] . See Hart PC, Bergner CL, Dufour BD, Smolinsky AN, Egan RJ, LaPorte L, et al. Analysis of abnormal repetitive behaviors in experimental animal models In Warrick JE, Kauleff AV, eds. Translational Neuroscience and Its Advancement of Animal Research Ethics . New York: Nova Science; 2009:71–82 [ Google Scholar ] . See Lutz C, Well A, Novak M. Stereotypic and self-injurious behavior in rhesus macaques: A survey and retrospective analysis of environment and early experience . American Journal of Primatology 2003; 60 :1–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see Balcombe JP, Barnard ND, Sandusky C. Laboratory routines cause animal stress . Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 2004; 43 :42–51. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

9. Suckow MA, Weisbroth SH, Franklin CL. The Laboratory Rat . 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006, at 323.

10. Flow BL, Jaques JT. Effect of room arrangement and blood sample collection sequence on serum thyroid hormone and cortisol concentrations in cynomolgus macaques ( Macaca fascicularis ). Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 1997;36:65–8.

11. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

12. See note 8, Balcombe et al. 2004.

13. Baldwin A, Bekoff M. Too stressed to work. New Scientist 2007;194:24.

14. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

15. Akhtar A, Pippin JJ, Sandusky CB. Animal models in spinal cord injury: A review . Reviews in the Neurosciences 2008; 19 :47–60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

16. See note 13, Baldwin, Bekoff 2007.

17. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

18. See Macleod MR, O’Collins T, Howells DW, Donnan GA. Pooling of animal experimental data reveals influence of study design and publication bias . Stroke 2004; 35 :1203–8 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also O’ Neil BJ, Kline JA, Burkhart K, Younger J. Research fundamentals: V. The use of laboratory animal models in research. Academic Emergency Medicine 1999;6:75–82.

19. Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D, Dudek BC. Genetics of mouse behavior: Interactions with laboratory environment . Science 1999; 284 :1670–2, at 1670. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

20. See Curry SH. Why have so many drugs with stellar results in laboratory stroke models failed in clinical trials? A theory based on allometric relationships. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2003;993:69–74. See also Dirnagl U. Bench to bedside: The quest for quality in experimental stroke research . Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism 2006; 26 :1465–78 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

21. van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Poritt MJ, Rewell S, O’Collins V, et al. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Medicine 2010; 7 :e1000245. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

22. See note 20, Dirnagl 2006. See also Sena E, van der Worp B, Howells D, Macleod M. How can we improve the pre-clinical development of drugs for stroke? Trends in Neurosciences 2007; 30 :433–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

23. See Gawrylewski A. The trouble with animal models: Why did human trials fail? The Scientist 2007;21:44. See also Fisher M, Feuerstein G, Howells DW, Hurn PD, Kent TA, Savitz SI, et al. Update of the stroke therapy academic industry roundtable preclinical recommendations . Stroke 2009; 40 :2244–50. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

24. See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. There is some dispute as to how vigorously investigators adhered to the suggested criteria. Nevertheless, NXY-059 animal studies were considered an example of preclinical studies that most faithfully adhered to the STAIR criteria. For further discussion see also Wang MM, Guohua X, Keep RF. Should the STAIR criteria be modified for preconditioning studies? Translational Stroke Research 2013; 4 :3–14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

25. See note 24, Wang et al. 2013.

26. O’Collins VE, Macleod MR, Donnan GA, Horky LL, van der Worp BH, Howells DW. 1,026 experimental treatments in acute stroke . Annals of Neurology 2006; 59 :467–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

27. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

28. See note 5, Mak et al. 2014.

29. See Perrin S. Preclinical research: Make mouse studies work . Nature 2014; 507 :423–5 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also, generally, Wilkins HM, Bouchard RJ, Lorenzon NM, Linseman DA. Poor correlation between drug efficacies in the mutant SOD1 mouse mode versus clinical trials of ALS necessitates the development of novel animal models for sporadic motor neuron disease. In: Costa A, Villalba E, eds. Horizons in Neuroscience Research. Vol. 5. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science; 2011:1–39.

30. Traynor BJ, Bruijn L, Conwit R, Beal F, O’Neill G, Fagan SC, et al. Neuroprotective agents for clinical trials in ALS: A systematic assessment . Neurology 2006; 67 :20–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

31. Sinha G. Another blow for ALS . Nature Biotechnology 2013; 31 :185 [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 30, Traynor et al. 2006.

32. See Morales DM, Marklund N, Lebold D, Thompson HJ, Pitkanen A, Maxwell WL, et al. Experimental models of traumatic brain injury: Do we really need a better mousetrap? Neuroscience 2005; 136 :971–89 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Xiong YE, Mahmood A, Chopp M. Animal models of traumatic brain injury . Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2013; 14 :128–42 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . And see commentary by Farber: Farber N. Drug development in brain injury. International Brain Injury Association ; available at http://www.internationalbrain.org/articles/drug-development-in-traumatic-brain-injury/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

33. Maas AI, Roozenbeek B, Manley GT. Clinical trials in traumatic brain injury: Past experience and current developments . Neurotherapeutics 2010; 7 :115–26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

34. Schneider LS, Mangialasche F, Andreasen N, Feldman H, Giacobini E, Jones R, et al. Clinical trials and late-stage drug development in Alzheimer’s disease: An appraisal from 1984 to 2014 . Journal of Internal Medicine 2014; 275 :251–83 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

35. Seok J, Warren HS, Cuenca AG, Mindrinos MN, Baker HV, Xu W, et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 2013; 110 :3507–12. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

36. Palfreyman MG, Charles V, Blander J. The importance of using human-based models in gene and drug discovery . Drug Discovery World 2002. Fall:33–40 [ Google Scholar ] .

37. See note 2, Perel et al. 2007.

38. Harding A. More compounds failing phase I. The Scientist 2004 Sept 13; available at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/23003/title/More-compounds-failing-Phase-I/ (last accessed 2 June 2014).

39. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

40. See note 5, Hartung, Zurlo 2012.

41. Wiebers DO, Adams HP, Whisnant JP. Animal models of stroke: Are they relevant to human disease? Stroke 1990; 21 :1–3. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

42. See note 15, Akhtar et al. 2008.

43. See note 2, Akhtar et al. 2009.

44. Lonjon N, Prieto M, Haton H, Brøchner CB, Bauchet L, Costalat V, et al. Minimum information about animal experiments: Supplier is also important . Journal of Neuroscience Research 2009; 87 :403–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

45. Mogil JS, Wilson SG, Bon K, Lee SE, Chung K, Raber P, et al. Heritability of nociception I: Responses of 11 inbred mouse strains on 12 measures of nociception . Pain 1999; 80 :67–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

46. Tator H, Hashimoto R, Raich A, Norvell D, Fehling MG, Harrop JS, et al. Translational potential of preclinical trials of neuroprotection through pharmacotherapy for spinal cord injury . Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine 2012; 17 :157–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

47. See note 35, Seok et al. 2013, at 3507.

48. Odom DT, Dowell RD, Jacobsen ES, Gordon W, Danford TW, MacIsaac KD, et al. Tissue-specific transcriptional regulation has diverged significantly between human and mouse . Nature Genetics 2007; 39 :730–2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

49. Horrobin DF. Modern biomedical research: An internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003; 2 :151–4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

50. Vassilopoulous S, Esk C, Hoshino S, Funke BH, Chen CY, Plocik AM, et al. A role for the CHC22 clathrin heavy-chain isoform in human glucose metabolism . Science 2009; 324 :1192–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

51. See Guttman-Yassky E, Krueger JG. Psoriasis: Evolution of pathogenic concepts and new therapies through phases of translational research . British Journal of Dermatology 2007; 157 :1103–15 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also The mouse model: Less than perfect, still invaluable. Johns Hopkins Medicine ; available at http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/model_organisms/201010_mouse_model.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014). See note 23, Gawrylewski 2007. See note 2, Benatar 2007. See note 29, Perrin 2014 and Wilkins et al. 2011. See Cavanaugh S, Pippin J, Barnard N. Animal models of Alzheimer disease: Historical pitfalls and a path forward. ALTEX online first; 2014 Apr 10. And see Woodroofe A, Coleman RA. ServiceNote: Human tissue research for drug discovery . Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News 2007; 27 :18 [ Google Scholar ] .

52. Lane E, Dunnett S. Animal models of Parkinson’s disease and L-dopa induced dyskinesia: How close are we to the clinic? Psychopharmacology 2008; 199 :303–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

53. See note 52, Lane, Dunnett 2008.

54. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

55. Bailey J. An assessment of the role of chimpanzees in AIDS vaccine research . Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2008; 36 :381–428. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

56. Tonks A. The quest for the AIDs vaccine . BMJ 2007; 334 :1346–8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

57. Johnston MI, Fauci AS. An HIV vaccine—evolving concepts . New England Journal of Medicine 2007; 356 :2073–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

58. See Rossouw JE, Andersen GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberf C, Stefanick ML, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy menopausal women: Principle results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2002; 288 :321–33 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Andersen GL, Limacher A, Assaf AR, Bassford T, Beresford SA, Black H, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: The Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial . JAMA 2004; 291 :1701–12 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

59. Lemere CA. Developing novel immunogens for a safe and effective Alzheimer’s disease vaccine . Progress in Brain Research 2009; 175 :83. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

60. Allen A. Of mice and men: The problems with animal testing. Slate 2006 June 1; available at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/06/of_mice_or_men.html (last accessed 10 Dec 2014).

61. Attarwala H. TGN1412: From discovery to disaster . Journal of Young Pharmacists 2010; 2 :332–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

62. See Hogan RJ. Are nonhuman primates good models for SARS? PLoS Medicine 2006; 3 :1656–7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Bailey J. Non-human primates in medical research and drug development: A critical review . Biogenic Amines 2005; 19 :235–55. [ Google Scholar ]

63. See note 4, Wall, Shani 2008.

64. Lemon R, Dunnett SB. Surveying the literature from animal experiments: Critical reviews may be helpful—not systematic ones . BMJ 2005; 330 :977–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

65. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P, Haig S. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation . BMJ 2002; 324 :474–6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

66. See note 60,Allen 2006. See also Heywood R. Target organ toxicity . Toxicology Letters 1981; 8 :349–58 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See Fletcher AP. Drug safety tests and subsequent clinical experience . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1978; 71 :693–6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

67. See note 60, Allen 2006. See note 5, Pippin 2013. See also Greek R, Greek J. Animal research and human disease . JAMA 2000; 283 :743–4 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

68. See note 60, Allen 2006. See also note 5, Leist, Hartung 2013.

69. Food and Drug Administration. Development & approval process (drugs); available at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/ (last accessed 7 Dec 2014). See also http://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm143534.htm (last accessed 7 Dec 2014).

70. Drug discovery pipeline. IRSF; available at http://www.rettsyndrome.org/research-programs/programmatic-overview/drug-discovery-pipeline (last accessed 24 Sept 2014).

71. See note 60, Allen 2006.

72. Follow the yellow brick road. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2003;2:167, at 167.

73. See note 5, Pippin 2013.

74. For data on aspirin, see Hartung T. Per aspirin as astra … Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 2009; 37 (Suppl 2 ):45–7 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also note 5, Pippin 2013. For data on penicillin, see Koppanyi T, Avery MA. Species differences and the clinical trial of new drugs: A review . Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1966; 7 :250–70 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] . See also Schneierson SS, Perlman E. Toxicity of penicillin for the Syrian hamster . Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1956; 91 :229–30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

75. See note 67, Greek, Greek 2000.

76. Oral bioavailability of blockbuster drugs in humans and animals. PharmaInformatic . available at http://www.pharmainformatic.com/html/blockbuster_drugs.html (last accessed 19 Sept 2014).

77. Sams-Dodd F. Strategies to optimize the validity of disease models in the drug discovery process . Drug Discovery Today 2006; 11 :355–63 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

78. Zurlo J. No animals harmed: Toward a paradigm shift in toxicity testing . Hastings Center Report 2012;42. Suppl:s23–6 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

79. There is no direct analysis of the amount of money spent on animal testing versus alternatives across all categories; however, in 2008 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that funding of research involving animals (under basic research) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) remained steady at about 42 percent since 1990. See Monastersky R. Protesters fail to slow animal research. Chronicle of Higher Education 2008:54. In 2012, NIH director Francis Collins noted that the NIH’s support for basic research has held steady at 54 percent of the agency’s budget for decades. The remainder of the NIH’s budget is heavily funded toward clinical research, suggesting that preclinical human-based testing methods are much less funded. See also Wadman M. NIH director grilled over translational research centre. Nature News Blog 2012 Mar 20. Available at http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/03/nih-director-grilled-over-translational-research-center.html (last accessed 5 Mar 2015). There is no data that suggests that the NIH’s funding of animal experimentation has decreased. A 2010 analysis estimates that at least 50 percent of the NIH’s extramural funding is directed into animal research; see Greek R, Greek J. Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable? Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 2010; 5 :14 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] .

80. For a helpful discussion on animal pain, fear, and suffering, see DeGrazia D. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Lives and Moral Status . New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996:116–23. [ Google Scholar ]

81. See Akhtar A. Animals and Public Health: Why Treating Animals Better Is Critical to Human Welfare . Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2012:chap. 5.

Animal Testing - Free Essay Samples And Topic Ideas

Animal testing, the use of non-human animals in experiments to assess the safety and efficacy of substances, evokes strong ethical debates. Essays on animal testing could explore the scientific, ethical, and legal aspects surrounding this practice. Discussions might delve into the necessity, alternatives, and the rights of animals versus the benefits to humanity. Moreover, analyzing the historical evolution of animal testing, the regulations governing it, and the public opinion and activism surrounding animal testing can provide a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted issues involved in this contentious practice. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Animal Testing you can find at PapersOwl Website. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Animal Testing should be Banned

Many organizations are debating whether animal testing ought to be banned in the U. S. Some believe that animal testing ought to be done. At the same time, others believe that animal testing is completely wrong. Some experts believe that other options can be available instead of doing the test on animals. Using animals to test the safety of certain products and for medical research purposes is wrong, and it should be made a point that the pain and suffering […]

Animal Testing: is it Ethical?

Animals being sacred gifts given to us, they are the best part of our lives and provide us with a special way of love. They do nothing but bring joy and happiness to us. My whole life I've grown up with all different kinds of animals. I've had a dog named Shelby, two cats Ruby and Smokey, a bird named Cheeks, two hamsters Bernard and Sandy, and I currently have a dog named Rocky and a rabbit named Daisy. I […]

Types of Animal Cruelty

The definition of animal cruelty varies from person to person and although it is talked about occasionally, many people tend to downplay the seriousness of it. Animal abuse comes in many forms such as scientific research, abandonment, mistreatment, and so on. The experimentation and cruelty committed should be banned because animals share the same basic rights as humans. Without a doubt, mistreatment of animals is the most common form of animal cruelty. It comes in many forms which are: animal […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Animal Testing is Unethical, Unreliable and Unnecessary

Every year, 100 million animals sit in U.S laboratories caged and waiting to be burned, abused, and infected (Madhusree 1). The test subjects have few rights, protective services, or liberties. The pictures of restrained tormented animals are hidden in a veil of secrecy amongst red lipsticks, sweetener packets, and paints. What the world desires carries a secret pain, and comes at a cost that often goes unnoticed. Despite the scientific advancements achieved through animal testing, scientists should resort to alternative […]

Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

Aside from what anyone thinks animal testing does has positives, although some might argue that they don't outweigh the negatives. Testing on a living organism could be more accurate than a small percentage of alternatives. It also gave us a much better understanding of our own anatomy considering before we tested on animals we thought our lungs pumped our blood throughout our body(Animal Experimentation). Also animal testing has given us an insight on the effectiveness of medications developed to combat […]

Reasons of Animal Cruelty

"The Humane Society of the United States estimates that nearly 1 million animals a year are abused or killed in episodes of domestic violence" (Rajewski). Animal abuse is referred to as an act of intentional mistreatment against animals and is inflicted by humans for reasons other than survival or self-defense. The topic of animal cruelty has been debated for an extremely long time, but nothing has changed for the past decade, and people continue to use violence against animals. It […]

Animal Testing in Medical and Cosmetic Research

Every year there is less and less animal testing done in both medical and cosmetic research. There are plenty of reasons as to why animal testing has been proven to be effective in research experiments. While the beginnings of animal testing were not entirely reassuring of its tactics in the process of testing . However with the time animal testing has been around, it has greatly improved with the advancement of regulations and technology put towards animal testing. Therefore, animal […]

The Controversy of Animal Testing

Imagine a cute white little bunny. You couldn't even fathom harming this creature, could you? However, every day bunnies, like the one you imagined, are used in trials where they are harmed. I'm sure you've heard of companies claiming that they are cruelty free or don't support animal testing , but are you aware of what animal testing really is and what the animals endure during their trials? Companies every day torture animals in tests that don't always prove to […]

The Definition of Animal Cruelty

The definition of animal cruelty is the infliction by omission or by commission by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human. A car like any other is driving down the street, rain pounding on the windshield. The girl in the passenger seat sees a dark blur on the side of the road. She focuses on it, and sees a soaked dog, whose fur is severely matted, and covered in mud. Its tail had no wag, and it was so […]

Medical Animal Testing should be Banned

Medical animal testing should be banned for there being other humane testing methods that exist. Because there are other alternatives that would replace or relieve animal testing, the use of animals would decrease dramatically. An example of a company who believes in an alternative to animal testing is Procter & Gamble Co. or P&G. Every year they spend $4.5 million on research that advances alternatives to animal testing. Though these alternatives may not replace all animal testing; but, it would […]

Problems with Animal Testing: Inhumane Practices and Neglected Interests

Abstract The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), enacted in August 1966, regulates the treatment and care of animals in research (Murnaghan 4). However, researchers annually exploit approximately 26 million animals for scientific and commercial testing in the United States (The Flaws and Human Harms ). These exploitations occur while developing medical treatments, determining toxicity levels in medicine, and ensuring the safety of cosmetic products prior to human utilization. While conducting a study on animal welfare, the United States Department of Agriculture […]

The Ethics of Animal Experimentation

1. Background Information 2.1 What is animal testing? An animal test is any scientific experiment or test in which a animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them pain, suffering, distress or lasting damage. In animal experiments, animals would be injected or feed with probably harmful substances, exposed to radiation and forced to inhale toxic gases. Also, the lab resistant may surgically removing animals' organs or tissues to deliberately cause damage and subjecting animals to frightening […]

The Animal Testing and Experimentation Industry

Companies test their products on animals for the benefits of their own profit. Animals are treated harshly during this process. Most product consumers are unaware of the actions these companies are making. People continue to buy these products, probably unaware of the conditions the animals are under. With the revision and production of new items, animals continue to be used for the benefit of these companies. Animals are often tested for cosmetics, medications, and other daily uses. The animals are […]

The Cruelty in Animal Testing

Every year in the United States, it is estimated that tens of millions of animals are used for research and testing purposes (Animal Experimentation 50). These animals are usually mice, rats, rabbits, fish, guinea pigs, non-human primates, and other farm animals. Test animals undergo testing for cosmetics and household products, trials for new medicines, and scientific experiments. These tests and experiments are uncomfortable and often painful for the animals. The United States has laws to protect animals, but there are […]

Opposing Views Animal Testing

The United Nations guarantees a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that asserts that everyone has got a right to liberty, life and also security. Despite that, the declaration protects human beings from cruel treatment, slavery and eventually torture. These rights are considered to be inherent according to the law of land. There has been always a debate on whether animals have got moral rights that should be recognized as well as protected by the human society. In the actual sense, […]

Animal Testing and its Importance

From over-the-counter medicine to the shampoo we use, it's easy to forget how relatively easy our lives have become with the many commodities available to us today. What we do not often consider is how these privileges came to be. What we do not think about is the prevalence of animal testing behind many necessary medicines and products. While controversial, the age-old practice of using animals for scientific and commercial testing has no doubt made many invaluable contributions to our […]

New and Safe Treatments for Humanity

Animal testing has long been a means to discover new and safe treatments for humanity. Modern medicines and innovations are constantly being created and updated, creating an ongoing need for ways to test them. There have been many different methods of testing throughout history. By the Roman era, dissection and vivisection (the dissection of live animals) were established scientific practices (Fellenz 72). That was a more official part of animal testing history. Although not technically experimenting, people learned how animal […]

Effectiveness of Animal Testing

For Centuries animals have been tested on for research all across the globe. These animals can range from elephants to mice and can have an age range from new-borne to oldest surviving. The oldest form of animal testing has been dated back to around 199-217 AD. That's before the time of some of the earths early great scientists and researchers like Aristotle and Erasistratus. It is still as important today because of how much information we can actually gain from […]

Cruelty to Animals and Animal Testing

Animal cruelty can be defined in many ways: Being violent to animals in any way, failure to provide for animals, being neglectful to animals. Also causing animals psychological harm in the form of distress, torment or terror may also constitute animal cruelty (RSPCA). For example when picking out eyeliner or other makeup products, do people stop to see at the stores what kind of makeup they are buying and using? People could be supporting animal testing and cruelty and not […]

Support of Animal Testing

The arguments of those who support animal testing are understandable in certain situations, and, in these situation the views are valid and their views ought to be respected. And although there are downsides to animal testing and experimenting there's upsides as well. At the cost of an animal's life or comfortably humans lives will be saved or given an increased quality of life. In the nineteenth century, physicians could do very little to treat heart disease, because there was no […]

Alternatives to Animal Testing: a Glimpse into the Innovative and Compassionate Future of Scientific Research

Let's chat about something. You’ve probably heard whispers of testing stuff on animals. Whether you're in camp "necessary evil" or team "save the bunnies," there's some pretty snazzy news. We've got alternative methods bubbling up, blowing our minds. Scientists have found a way to grow miniature human organs in labs. Imagine a teensy liver or a bite-sized brain being used to check if that new face cream is safe. It’s all about getting results without making Fido or Thumper shed […]

Using Animals for Medical Testing is both Ethical and Essential?

In this Argumentative essay I have chosen to talk about Animal testing and why I think it is needed in today's work of medicines and cures. I will be given you four main facts on why I believe it is still very helpful to us humans and even helpful to the animals themselves. Honestly speaking people have become so sensitive in today's environments about many things like animal feelings, or they think like us humans. They truly forgotten that these […]

The Importance of Animal Models in Vaccines

If you have ever taken any type of medicine or had a vaccine, you have benefited from animal testing: Research with animals led to vaccinations against smallpox, measles, mumps, and tetanus. The world's first vaccine was tested on a cow in 1796 during the observation of milkmaids who caught cowpox , which is now called smallpox, from infected cow utters. This disease was eradicated in 1980 with the help of lab animals. Looking at the more frequent viruses in our […]

Animal Rights and Society

2. Background information 2.1 What is animal testing Animal testing is different experiments, researches that carried out on the animals. Different animals are used in different test, e.g. mice, rabbits, pigs. Those animals are used to check the safety and assess the effectiveness of the products that for human use, e.g. medicine, food, cosmetics. It's also used to understand how well the product works on human body. However, all of those tests may harm to animals and cause them physical […]

The Americans for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ASPCA

Introduction Service learning and community partnership incorporates academic learning into service projects that becomes more common and popular in today's community. What it does is teaches us about the history and needs of the agency being helped as well as seeing positive changes that their involvement makes. Just by incorporating different aspects of learning into community service, we can become invested in their work and more likely to stay committed to the cause. The cause of the agency is to […]

Animal Research for Human Benefit is Unnecessary

Most people believe animal testing is essential to drug and vaccine research. Which is true, in a sense, because scientist have come up with a lot of vaccines for certain viruses. However, during the process, animals are treated poorly and their cages are in awful conditions. Most of the chemicals being administered into these patients are not safe for them, which sometimes results in death. Not only that, animals cannot comprehend what humans can. They cannot speak for themselves. These […]

The Study on Animal Experimentation

Animal testing has been a severe problem that still has not been resolved. Animal testing should be stopped for the safety of animals and human, but since it cannot be, how can it be improved? Many scientists rely on animal testing to collect data on safety and efficacy from experiments. They use animals to test products like food, drugs, cosmetics, medicines, and chemicals. They use animals because animals serve to protect consumers, workers and the environment from the harmful effects […]

Vaccine Development

The conversation of animal testing has never been anything less than controversial. Although animal testing is not new, the topic still faces severe criticism by several animal activists' groups. Humans have used animals as a means to learn about various subjects for a while now. It dates back to uses from Greek-physician scientists ""such as Aristotle, 384 “ 322 BC and Erasistratus, 304 “ 258 BC (Hajar 1). During these experiments' scientists would use live animals as their test subjects. […]

What is Animal Cruelty?

Animal cruelty is the act of humans inflicting harm and suffering onto an animal. This can include neglect, animal fighting, and overt abuse. In the United States, an animal is abused every ten seconds. Animal protection organizations are working to stop animal cruelty everywhere. Many of these organizations believe in animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights activists usually go to the extremes, and will even break laws to make a statement to the public. One point of contention for […]

Ethical Issues in Animal Experimentation

There is of course the huge ethical consequence that comes from testing on animals. It is also super expensive to actually test on animals and some of the information from the tests don't give accurate results for us. Animals are different from humans everyone knows that. That's money, manpower and time going to waste. It's also very expensive compared to other options that are out or already developed. The cost of animal testing is enormous and doesn't always yield results. […]

Additional Example Essays

• Leadership and the Army Profession
• Why Abortion Should be Illegal
• Death Penalty Should be Abolished
• Dogs Are Better Than Cats Essay
• Personal Philosophy of Leadership
• Gender Roles in the Great Gatsby
• Professions for Women by Virginia Woolf
• A Reflection on Mental Health Awareness and Overcoming Stigma
• Homeless Veterans
• Does Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence
• The Effects of Illegal Immigration
• Poverty in America

How To Write an Essay About Animal Testing

Introduction to the topic of animal testing.

When embarking on an essay about animal testing, it is essential to begin by defining what animal testing encompasses and the contexts in which it is used. This includes its application in medical research, cosmetics testing, and other scientific endeavors. In your introduction, outline the scope of the debate, which often centers around ethical considerations, scientific necessity, and the pursuit of medical advancements. Acknowledge the complexity of the topic, which involves balancing the welfare of animals with potential human benefits. This introductory section should set the stage for a thoughtful exploration of the multifaceted issues surrounding animal testing.

Delving into Ethical and Scientific Perspectives

The body of your essay should delve into the various ethical and scientific perspectives surrounding animal testing. One key aspect to explore is the ethical debate, which includes arguments about animal rights, suffering, and the moral implications of using animals for human benefit. On the scientific side, discuss the role of animal testing in medical breakthroughs and the question of its necessity and effectiveness. It's important to consider both sides of the argument, providing a balanced view that includes the advancements made possible by animal testing, as well as the ethical dilemmas it raises. Use evidence such as scientific data, ethical theories, and regulatory policies to support your points.

Analyzing Alternatives and Societal Impacts

In this section, focus on the alternatives to animal testing and the potential impacts of these methods on society and scientific research. Discuss advancements in technology, such as computer modeling and cell-based assays, and how they offer potential replacements or reductions in animal use. Analyze how these alternatives could change the landscape of research and testing, considering both the benefits and limitations. Also, consider the societal implications of animal testing, including public opinion, regulatory changes, and the role of advocacy groups. This part of your essay should highlight the evolving nature of the debate and the future possibilities for both scientific research and animal welfare.

Concluding the Discussion

Conclude your essay by summarizing the main arguments and reflecting on the ongoing debate surrounding animal testing. This is an opportunity to reiterate the complexity of the issue and the importance of continuing to balance ethical considerations with scientific progress. Consider the future of animal testing and the role of evolving ethical standards and scientific advancements in shaping this area. A strong conclusion will not only wrap up your essay but also encourage further thought and discussion about the ethical and scientific dimensions of animal testing.

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Ethical care for research animals

WHY ANIMAL RESEARCH?

The use of animals in some forms of biomedical research remains essential to the discovery of the causes, diagnoses, and treatment of disease and suffering in humans and in animals., stanford shares the public's concern for laboratory research animals..

Many people have questions about animal testing ethics and the animal testing debate. We take our responsibility for the ethical treatment of animals in medical research very seriously. At Stanford, we emphasize that the humane care of laboratory animals is essential, both ethically and scientifically.  Poor animal care is not good science. If animals are not well-treated, the science and knowledge they produce is not trustworthy and cannot be replicated, an important hallmark of the scientific method .

There are several reasons why the use of animals is critical for biomedical research: 

••  Animals are biologically very similar to humans. In fact, mice share more than 98% DNA with us!

••  Animals are susceptible to many of the same health problems as humans – cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.

••  With a shorter life cycle than humans, animal models can be studied throughout their whole life span and across several generations, a critical element in understanding how a disease processes and how it interacts with a whole, living biological system.

The ethics of animal experimentation

Nothing so far has been discovered that can be a substitute for the complex functions of a living, breathing, whole-organ system with pulmonary and circulatory structures like those in humans. Until such a discovery, animals must continue to play a critical role in helping researchers test potential new drugs and medical treatments for effectiveness and safety, and in identifying any undesired or dangerous side effects, such as infertility, birth defects, liver damage, toxicity, or cancer-causing potential.

U.S. federal laws require that non-human animal research occur to show the safety and efficacy of new treatments before any human research will be allowed to be conducted.  Not only do we humans benefit from this research and testing, but hundreds of drugs and treatments developed for human use are now routinely used in veterinary clinics as well, helping animals live longer, healthier lives.

It is important to stress that 95% of all animals necessary for biomedical research in the United States are rodents – rats and mice especially bred for laboratory use – and that animals are only one part of the larger process of biomedical research.

Our researchers are strong supporters of animal welfare and view their work with animals in biomedical research as a privilege.

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of all animals in their care..

Stanford researchers are obligated to ensure the well-being of animals in their care, in strict adherence to the highest standards, and in accordance with federal and state laws, regulatory guidelines, and humane principles. They are also obligated to continuously update their animal-care practices based on the newest information and findings in the fields of laboratory animal care and husbandry.  

Researchers requesting use of animal models at Stanford must have their research proposals reviewed by a federally mandated committee that includes two independent community members.  It is only with this committee’s approval that research can begin. We at Stanford are dedicated to refining, reducing, and replacing animals in research whenever possible, and to using alternative methods (cell and tissue cultures, computer simulations, etc.) instead of or before animal studies are ever conducted.

Organizations and Resources

There are many outreach and advocacy organizations in the field of biomedical research.

• Learn more about outreach and advocacy organizations

Stanford Discoveries

What are the benefits of using animals in research? Stanford researchers have made many important human and animal life-saving discoveries through their work. 

• Learn more about research discoveries at Stanford

Cruelty Free International

subtitle: Working to create a world where no animals suffer in a laboratory

breadcrumb navigation:

• About Animal Testing /
• current page Arguments against animal testing

Arguments against animal testing

Animal experiments are cruel, unreliable, and even dangerous

The harmful use of animals in experiments is not only cruel but also often ineffective. Animals do not naturally get many of the diseases that humans do, such as major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, HIV, Parkinson’s disease or schizophrenia. Instead, signs of these diseases are artificially induced in animals in laboratories in an attempt to mimic the human disease. Yet, such experiments belittle the complexity of human conditions which are affected by wide-ranging variables such as genetics, socio-economic factors, deeply-rooted psychological issues and different personal experiences.

It is not surprising to find that treatments showing “promise” in animals rarely work in humans.  Not only are time, money and animals’ lives being wasted (with a huge amount of suffering), but effective treatments are being mistakenly discarded and harmful treatments are getting through. The support for animal testing is based largely on anecdote and is not backed up, we believe, by the scientific evidence that is out there.

Despite many decades of studying cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, stroke and AIDS in animals, none of these conditions have reliable and fully effective cures and some don’t even have effective treatments.

The history of cancer research has been the history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn’t work in human beings.

Unreliable animal testing

• 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials despite appearing safe and effective in animal tests, often on safety grounds or because they do not work.
• Urology drugs have the lowest success rate (only 4% are approved after entering clinical trials) followed by heart drugs (5% success rate), cancer drugs (5% success rate) and neurology drugs (6% success rate).
• Our research has shown that using dogs, rats, mice and rabbits to test whether or not a drug will be safe for humans provides statistically little useful insight. Our study also revealed that drug tests on monkeys are just as poor as those using any other species in predicting the effects on humans.
• A recent study found that out of 93 dangerous drug side effects, only 19% could have been predicted by animal tests.
• Another study showed that over 1,000 potential stroke treatments have been “successful” in animal tests, but of the approximately 10% that progressed to human trials, none worked sufficiently well in humans.
• One review of 101 high impact discoveries based on basic animal experiments found that only 5% resulted in approved treatments within 20 years. More recently, we conducted an analysis of 27 key animal-based ‘breakthroughs ’ that had been reported by the UK press 25 years earlier. Mirroring the earlier study, we found only one of the 27 “breakthroughs” had been realised in humans, and that was subject to several caveats.

Dangerous animal testing

• Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 140,000 heart attacks and strokes and 60,000 deaths worldwide.
• Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK, in 2006 suffered a severe immune reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.
• A drug trial in France resulted in the death of one volunteer and left four others severely brain damaged in 2016. The drug, which was intended to treat a wide range of conditions including anxiety and Parkinson’s disease, was tested in four different species of animals (mice, rats, dogs and monkeys) before being given to humans.
• A clinical trial of Hepatitis B drug fialuridine had to be stopped because it caused severe liver damage in seven patients, five of whom died. It had been tested on animals first.

Animals are different

• Animals do not get many of the diseases we do, such as Parkinson’s disease, major types of heart disease, many types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, HIV or schizophrenia.
• An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA.
• The most commonly used species of monkey to test drug safety (Cynomolgous macaque monkeys) is resistant to doses of paracetamol (acetaminophen) that would be deadly in humans.
• Chocolate, grapes, raisins, avocados and macadamia nuts are harmless in humans but toxic to dogs.
• Aspirin is toxic to many animals and would not be on our pharmacy shelves if it had been tested according to current animal testing standards.

The science relating to animal experiments can be extremely complicated and views often differ. What appears on this website represents Cruelty Free International expert opinion, based on a thorough assessment of the evidence.

FIND OUT MORE ABOUT ANIMAL TESTING

Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Alternatives to animal testing

subtitle: Alternatives to animal tests are often cheaper, quicker and more effective.

Science Page

Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Our History

subtitle: Established in 1898, Cruelty Free International is firmly rooted in the early social justice movement and has a long and inspiring history.

Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

What is animal testing?

subtitle: Animals used in laboratories are deliberately harmed, not for their own good, and are usually killed at the end of the experiment.

Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Types of animal testing

subtitle: Animal testing is carried out in a wide range of areas, including biological research, and testing medicines and chemicals.

Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Facts and figures on animal testing

subtitle: Millions of animals are used and killed in the name of progress every year.

Science Publications

Advertisement

Supported by

Stormy Daniels, Who Testified About Sex With Trump, Will Return to Stand

The porn star at the center of the ex-president’s criminal trial, who will testify again on Thursday, spoke under oath about their encounter at a golf tournament in 2006, a meeting that could shape American history.

• Share full article

By Ben Protess ,  Jonah E. Bromwich ,  Maggie Haberman ,  Michael Rothfeld and Jonathan Swan

When Donald J. Trump met Stormy Daniels, their flirtation seemed fleeting: He was a 60-year-old married mogul at the peak of reality television fame, and she was 27, a Louisiana native raised in poverty and headed to porn-film stardom.

But that chance encounter in Lake Tahoe, Nev., some two decades ago is now at the center of the first criminal trial of an American president, an unprecedented case that could shape the 2024 presidential race.

This week, Ms. Daniels has been on the witness stand telling her side of the story, often in explicit detail. She has already faced five hours of questioning, and after the trial’s midweek hiatus, she is expected to return on Thursday to undergo additional cross-examination from Mr. Trump’s legal team.

The charges against Mr. Trump stem from her story of sex with him during that 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, a story she was shopping a decade later, in the closing days of the presidential campaign. Mr. Trump’s longtime lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 in hush money before Election Day, and the former president is accused of falsifying business records to cover up reimbursements for Mr. Cohen.

The Links Between Trump and 3 Hush-Money Deals

Here’s how key figures involved in making hush-money payoffs on behalf of Donald J. Trump are connected.

On Tuesday, Ms. Daniels’s fast-paced testimony lasted nearly five hours, during which she described an encounter with Mr. Trump, now 77, that he has long denied. Tension gripped the courtroom, her voluble testimony filling a heavy silence. She made jokes; they did not land.

After about a half-hour on the stand, she began to unspool intimate details about Mr. Trump, so much so that the judge balked at some of the testimony. He implied it was gratuitously vulgar, and the defense sought a mistrial.

Ms. Daniels said the future president had invited her to dinner inside his palatial Lake Tahoe hotel suite. He answered the door wearing silk pajamas. When he was rude, she playfully spanked him with a rolled-up magazine. And when she asked about his wife, he told her not to worry, saying that they didn’t even sleep in the same room — prompting Mr. Trump to shake his head in disgust and mutter “bullshit” to his lawyers, loud enough that it drew a private rebuke from the judge, who called it “contemptuous.”

Ms. Daniels then recounted the sex itself in graphic detail. It happened, she said, after she returned from the bathroom and found Mr. Trump in his boxer shorts and T-shirt. She tried to leave and he blocked her path, though not, she said, in a threatening manner. The sex was brief, she said, and although she never said no, there was a “power imbalance.”

“I was staring up at the ceiling, wondering how I got there,” she told the jury, adding that Mr. Trump did not wear a condom.

The testimony was an astonishing moment in American political history and a crowning spectacle in a trial full of them: a porn star, across from a former and potentially future president, telling the world what she was once paid to keep quiet about.

Ms. Daniels, 45, has told her story widely — to prosecutors, reporters, her friends, in a book — but never to jurors, and not with Mr. Trump in the room. Her appearance on the stand appeared to unnerve Mr. Trump as she aired his dirty laundry, under oath, in mortifying detail.

But Ms. Daniels’s story is not just a sordid kiss-and-tell tale; it spotlights what prosecutors say was Mr. Trump’s criminality. He is accused of engineering the false business records scheme to cover up all traces of their tryst: the hush money, the repayment to Mr. Cohen and, yes, the sex.

While the defense cast the testimony as a smear, Ms. Daniels provided prosecutors with some useful details. She established the fundamental story of her encounter with Mr. Trump. And she testified that she would have told the same uncomfortable tale in 2016, had she not taken the hush money from Mr. Trump’s fixer.

Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?

The first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump is underway. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.

But her testimony, at times, seemed problematic for the prosecutors who had called her. Ms. Daniels testified that money was not her motivation, and that she wanted to get her story out. That could draw skepticism from jurors, who have heard that she accepted the $130,000 and, in exchange, did not tell her story for more than a year.

“My motivation wasn’t money,” she said. “It was motivated out of fear, not money.”

The jury also saw the judge, Juan M. Merchan, scold Ms. Daniels at least twice, instructing her to stick to the questions asked of her. At one point, he even issued his own objection, interrupting her testimony as she began to describe the sexual position she and Mr. Trump assumed.

Justice Merchan, generally a stoic presence with a tight grip over his courtroom, showed rare exasperation as the testimony veered in a scurrilous direction and the trial took on a circuslike atmosphere.

He also asked Ms. Daniels to slow down. She was a rapid-fire talker, prone to laughter and lengthy asides.

Outside the jury’s presence, the judge said that “there were some things better left unsaid” in her testimony and suggested that Ms. Daniels might have “credibility issues.”

Yet he rejected the defense’s bid for a mistrial, instead inviting Mr. Trump’s lawyers to mount an aggressive questioning of Ms. Daniels.

“The more times this story has changed, the more fodder for cross-examination,” he said.

Susan Necheles, the Trump lawyer who led the cross-examination, heeded the judge’s advice.

She painted Ms. Daniels as a lying opportunist. She unearthed excerpts from Ms. Daniels’s book to suggest that her story had changed over time. And in a potentially troublesome moment for Ms. Daniels, Ms. Necheles implied that she had fabricated an account of a Trump supporter threatening her and her daughter in a Las Vegas parking lot, a story she did not share with her baby’s father.

“Your daughter’s life was in jeopardy, and you did not tell her father, right?” Ms. Necheles asked, the implication being that the story was phony.

Ms. Daniels was indignant. And during some cross-examination, she parried effectively, performing even better than she did with her answers to prosecutors.

Her testimony brought full circle one of the earliest scandals that loomed over Mr. Trump’s presidency. Ever since The Wall Street Journal broke the news six years ago that Mr. Cohen had paid her to keep quiet, her story has changed the course of American politics and laid the groundwork for the case.

Over the years, Ms. Daniels has leaned into her Trump-adjacent fame. She has sold merchandise, filmed a documentary, sat for high-profile interviews and written a book that was so tell-all it included detailed descriptions of the former president’s genitalia. Mr. Trump has also dished out insults that ridiculed her appearance, calling her “horseface.”

But at other times, Ms. Daniels appeared tortured, detailing the personal toll of outsize exposure. Suddenly, she was not just a porn star but a threat to a man who commands the most fervent political movement in modern American history. She told reporters she was inundated by threats from Trump supporters, many of which were graphic. She feared for her family and has divorced her third husband, the father of her daughter.

“I have been just tormented for the last five years or so,” she said in the opening scene of “Stormy,” a documentary about her life that was released on Peacock. “And here I am, I’m still here.”

Ms. Daniels joined the trial at a pivotal moment. On Monday, prosecutors had asked two veterans of the Trump Organization’s accounting department to show jurors the 34 records they say Mr. Trump falsified to conceal his reimbursement of Mr. Cohen for the hush money. Those include 11 invoices, 11 checks and 12 entries in Mr. Trump’s ledger that portrayed the payments as normal legal expenses.

The Donald Trump Indictment, Annotated

The indictment unveiled in April 2023 centers on a hush-money deal with a porn star, but a related document alleges a broader scheme to protect Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign.

In the weeks ahead, Mr. Cohen is expected to take the stand and connect the dots between the salacious details and the substantive documents. On Tuesday, Ms. Daniels’s testimony took jurors through the smuttier elements of the case.

She began by recounting a difficult childhood in Baton Rouge. Her parents split up when she was young, she said.

She wanted to be a veterinarian and was editor of her high school newspaper. Eventually, she began stripping, she says, because she earned more than she did shoveling manure at a horse stable.

By the time she met Mr. Trump at the golf tournament in 2006, she was a player in porn. She was an actress, and would ultimately find her footing as a director and producer.

Asked to identify Mr. Trump in the courtroom, she called him out as the man in a navy suit jacket. Ms. Daniels, dressed in all black and wearing glasses, reduced the singular former president to just another man in the courtroom.

She spent much of her testimony describing that first encounter in Lake Tahoe. When she met Mr. Trump, she knew he was a golfer and the host of the “The Apprentice,” the reality show that revived Mr. Trump’s celebrity for a new generation. In a memorable line, Ms. Daniels said she also knew that he was “as old or older than my father.”

Later that day, she said, Mr. Trump’s aide approached and invited her to dinner. She says he took her number, but that her initial reaction was “eff no,” abbreviating an expletive.

But her publicist encouraged her: “What could possibly go wrong?”

She then transported jurors inside his hotel room, painting the sprawling suite in minute detail, capturing every aspect down to the color of the tiles.

She said Mr. Trump had taken an interest in her business and asked about unions, residuals and health insurance, as well as about testing for sexually transmitted diseases. “He was very interested in how I segued from becoming just a porn star to writing and directing,” she said.

Ms. Daniels said Mr. Trump told her, “You remind me of my daughter. She is smart and blond and beautiful, and people underestimate her as well.”

She recalled going into the bathroom to do her lipstick, where, she said, she noticed gold tweezers and Old Spice.

Later, they stayed in touch, she said. In 2007, they met at Trump Tower in New York, at a Trump Vodka launch party in Los Angeles and at a Beverly Hills hotel — all interactions that appeared to undercut Mr. Trump’s claims that he barely knew her.

The jury was also shown contact logs from Ms. Daniels’s phone and from Mr. Trump’s assistant’s phone showing that they remained in touch. And when they did talk, she said, Mr. Trump had a nickname for her: “honeybunch.”

They have only spoken through lawyers since then, most notably during the hush-money negotiations. When Ms. Necheles accused Ms. Daniels of using that effort to “extort money from President Trump,” Ms. Daniels objected.

“False,” she said.

“That’s what you did, right?” Ms. Necheles persisted.

“False!” Ms. Daniels shouted.

Reporting was contributed by William K. Rashbaum , Kate Christobek , Jesse McKinley , Wesley Parnell and Matthew Haag .

Ben Protess is an investigative reporter at The Times, writing about public corruption. He has been covering the various criminal investigations into former President Trump and his allies. More about Ben Protess

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney’s office and state criminal courts in Manhattan. More about Jonah E. Bromwich

Maggie Haberman is a senior political correspondent reporting on the 2024 presidential campaign, down ballot races across the country and the investigations into former President Donald J. Trump. More about Maggie Haberman

Michael Rothfeld is an investigative reporter in New York, writing in-depth stories focused on the city’s government, business and personalities. More about Michael Rothfeld

Jonathan Swan is a political reporter covering the 2024 presidential election and Donald Trump’s campaign. More about Jonathan Swan

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

News and Analysis

As Donald Trump’s criminal trial enters its final stage, several legal experts say the case remains the prosecution’s to lose .

Michael Cohen, Trump’s one-time fixer and the key witness in the trial, faced hours of bruising questions  from a defense lawyer who sought to destroy his credibility with jurors.

The trial has underscored Trump’s favored tactics and behavior over the decades  — using allies as bullies, obsessing over the press, placing a premium on beauty and encouraging shows of loyalty.

More on Trump’s Legal Troubles

Key Inquiries: Trump faces several investigations  at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers.

Case Tracker:  Keep track of the developments in the criminal cases  involving the former president.

What if Trump Is Convicted?: Could he go to prison ? And will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s presidential campaign? Here is what we know , and what we don’t know .

Trump on Trial Newsletter: Sign up here  to get the latest news and analysis  on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Animal Rights — Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

Persuasive Essay Against Animal Testing

• Categories: Animal Rights Animal Testing Ethics

About this sample

Words: 572 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 572 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Philosophy

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1124 words

3 pages / 1576 words

2 pages / 1114 words

3 pages / 1351 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Animal Rights

PETA, also known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is a globally recognized organization that advocates for animal rights and aims to bring about change in society's attitudes towards animals. Since its [...]

Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, is the use of non-human animals for scientific research purposes. It involves subjecting animals to various procedures, such as surgical operations, injections, and exposure [...]

As the debate surrounding marine mammal captivity continues to gain traction, the case of Lolita, a captive killer whale at the Miami Seaquarium, serves as a focal point for discussions on animal welfare, conservation, and [...]

Animals have been a part of human society for centuries, serving various purposes such as companionship, food, and entertainment. However, the treatment of animals has been a topic of debate for years, with some arguing that [...]

The banning of pit bulls based on their breed is an unjust and ineffective approach to addressing dog-related incidents. It unfairly stigmatizes a specific breed, ignores the importance of individual responsibility, and fails to [...]

Zoos have been a topic of debate for many years, with some arguing that they play a crucial role in conservation efforts, while others believe that they are unethical and should be banned. This essay will explore the history of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free