Animals are not for Research

This assignment discusses the ethics of using animals in research and testing, highlighting the suffering and pain involved. It argues that animal testing should be eliminated as it violates the moral rights of animals and justifies their exploitation for human benefits.

ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH 1
Animals are not for Research
Student
Institution
Course Name
Instructor
Date
Animals are not for Research

ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH 2
In the past decades, animals for research and testing for products' safety have been a
controversial topic. According to Rosenfield et al. (2020), approximately sixty per cent of
animals have been utilized in biomedicine testing and product-safety testing over the years.
Different people have diverse feelings for animals. Some individuals look at animals as their
companion, and they are also those who recognize animals as a tool for advancing or furthering
medical procedures and scientific research. Regardless of these perceptions, it has remained the
fact that animals are exploited for research by cosmetic firms and food companies around the
globe. Although humans benefit from animals research, the suffering, the death, and the pain of
animals are not worth these benefits being enjoyed by individuals. Thus, using animals for
research or testing of the safety of products should be stopped.
Animals should not be used for research because their rights are being violated.
Armstrong and Botzler (2016) stipulated that that animal have moral rights to be treated
respectfully. Therefore, when animals are perceived as tools for scientific experiments, they are
not accorded fundamental rights. Like humans, animals can think, behave, feel, and experience
pain, implying that they need to be treated with respect as individuals. However, animals' rights
are being violated because researchers use animals for the experiment without thinking about
other specimens. Rosenfield et al. (2020) reported that tests that animals are subjected to are
painful and can lead to permanent damage or even death. Thus, any experiment that animals and
aim to benefit humans is morally wrong since animals' rights are infringed (Rosenfield, 2020).
The decisions for involving animals in research are made by humans, suggesting that animals
may not be willing to participate in the study to advance new technology and human welfare.
Humans are the decision-makers for the fate of animals in the field of research leading to
violation of animals’ rights without considering their quality of lives or wellbeing (Armstrong &

ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH 3
Botzler, 2016). For these reasons, animals’ experimentation needs to be stopped since it is a way
of violates.
Tests of products on animals is not necessary because there are possible alternatives. For
example, in the present, many cosmetic firms have looked for better ways of testing their
products without utilizing animals in the tests. According to Mardani, Ayuningtyas & Putri
(2019), cosmetics and bath-soap businesses develop their products using natural ingredients,
such as Basil nut oil and bananas. Through natural ingredients, the companies advocate for safe
human usage and discourage animal testing from determining their products' safety (Mardani,
Ayuningtyas & Putri, 2019). Further, the development of synthetic cellular tissues, resembling
human skin has practically made the Draize test obsolete (Garattni & Grignaschi, 2017). This
development means that scientists can now test the possible damage associated with a product to
human skin by using this cellular tissue instead of using animals in a testing (Garattni &
Grignaschi, 2017). Mardani, Ayuningtyas and Putri (2019) added that another alternative to
animal testing is Eyetex. Eyetex is a synthetic material product that turns opaque when damaged
by a product, thus, reassembling the way humans’ eyes react when exposed to harmful
substances. Besides, in vitro testing, there is a viable alternative in which cellular tests are
conducted in a test tube. The tests are proven to be reliable and useful alternatives for testing
products instead of animal testing. Thus, there are effective techniques for testing products
without using live animals specimens, implying that testing potentially harmful effects on
animals is not necessary.
The suffering and pain that animals involved in experiments are subjected to are not
worth benefiting humans. Rosenfield et al. (2020) explained that the American Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA) describes animals’ pain as a negative emotional and sensory

ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH 4
experience originating from a given part of the body. It is linked with potential or actual body
damage. Rosenfield et al. (2020) explained that animals feel pain the same as humans; for
example, both people and animals react to pain by screaming. Thus, when animals are subjected
to toxic experiments such as the LD50 test and the Draize test, they usually suffer from pain
(Rosenfield et al., 2020). For instance, in the Draize test, the substance being tested is placed in
animals' eyes like a rabbit. The animal is then monitored for any damage in its cornea and tissues
near and within the eye. This test is painful for animals, and its results are blindness, scarring and
death of the animals. Mardani, Ayuningtyas and Putri (2019) explained that in the past years, the
use of the LD50 test and the Draize test to examine products' safety had been eliminated because
they are scientifically unjustifiable. As a result, animal research needs to be stopped because it
exposes animals to pain, suffering, and death in different firms' laboratories globally.
However, there are people whose viewpoint is that animal testing is justified because
animals are used to make products safer for consumption and use by humans. The primary issue
with this perception is that the animals’ quality of life, wellbeing, and safety is not considered.
Animals involved in experiments are practically tortured to death because these experiments are
done for humans' safety, without reasoning of how animals are being treated. Some people have
also reasoned that animals themselves are benefiting from the researches. Yet, Mani (2019)
stipulated that animal may benefit from animal tests, although the value placed on the quality of
their lives is determined by humankind. Mani (2019) implied that making people live better is
not a way to justify torture and exploitation that animals receive. Thus, the value of life that
humans are placing to themselves needs to be extended to animals.
To conclude, animal testing need to be eliminated as it violates the moral rights of
animals. The use of animals in scientific research or testing product safety is painful and makes

ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH 5
these creatures suffer, leading to death. Further, humans should not justify animal use in research
by making their lives better by exploiting and torturing several animals yearly to test products
and conduct laboratory experiments. Animals need to be treated with dignity and respect; thus,
when animals are being exploited in experiments, these rights are not upheld. Therefore, humans
should protect the rights of animals because they are animals too.
References

ANIMALS ARE NOT FOR RESEARCH 6
Armstrong, S. J., & Botzler, R. G. (Eds.). (2016). The animal ethics reader. Taylor & Fnacis,
2016.
Garattni, S., & Grignaschi, G. (2017). “Animal testing is still the best way to fins new treatments
for patients.” European journal of internal medicine, 39, 32-35.
Mani, V. (2019). Animal and Human Psychology. Asian Journal of Research in Animal and
Veterinary Sciences, 1-8.
Mardani, P. B., Ayuningtyas, F., & Putri, J. N. (2019). Creative Strategies to Drive Brand
Awareness (Case of “Forever Against Animal Testing Campaign” The Body Shop
Indonesia). International Journal of Multicultural and Multi-religious Understanding,
6(10), 1-11.
Rosenfield, D. L., Blacetis, E., Bastian, B., Berkman, E., Bosson, J., Brannon, T., ... & Crandall,
C. (2020). Conducting Social Psychological Research in the Wake of COVID-19.