A Critical Analysis: Is Animal Experimentation Acceptable Today?

This essay explores the ethical and moral implications of using animals in scientific testing, particularly for drug development and safety assessments. It addresses the inherent pain and suffering inflicted upon animals during these experiments and questions the acceptability of such practices. The essay highlights the ongoing debate between researchers who believe animal testing is crucial for advancing human health and those who argue that animals should not be subjected to harmful experiments. It also discusses the 'three Rs' (Replace, Reduce, and Refine) as a regulatory framework aimed at minimizing animal suffering and promoting alternative testing methods, such as cell cultures. The essay concludes by acknowledging the harmful impacts of animal experiments while emphasizing the importance of humane practices and adherence to regulations to ensure ethical treatment of animals in research.

Running head: USE OF ANIMALS IN SCIENTIFIC TESTING
Use of Animals in Scientific Testing
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1USE OF ANIMALS IN SCIENTIFIC TESTING
In modern era, experiments on animals are widely conducted for the purpose of testifying
newly developed drugs in order to test the safety level of these products. According to recent
research, it has been shown that these experiments most of the times are associated with pain and
irritation which reduces their life cycles and at certain times causes death instantly (Burden et al.
973). In this regard, modern scholars have emphasized that it is morally and ethically to perform
experiments on animals which involves high risk (Denaye et al. 8). It is evident that from the
very beginning, scientists are aware of the consequences and ethical issues related with animal
testing however; there has been no or little effort on their part to make these experiments less
painful. The essay is commissioned to examine the fact that whether the use of animals in
scientific testing is acceptable.
The utilization of laws in scientific research has been a long debated topic. Some
researchers were of the perspective that it is ethically wrong to utilize animals in laboratory for
the benefit of human beings. However, some researchers were of the view that by removing
animals from the laboratory would create a major obstacle in the evaluation of serious health
diseases. Modern researchers opined that animal testing can be permitted on the basis that the
rate of suffering is minimized (Grundy 2548). However, others were of the opinion that animals
are not objects of experiments and that the benefits of animal testing still not have not proved to
be beneficial to the human world (Tang et al. 85). For the purpose of minimizing the risk
associated with animal testing, certain regulations were imposed in the form of ‘three Rs’ which
the modern researchers are bound to follow (Mak et al. 114). These ‘three Rs’ can be emphasized
as Replace, Reduce and Refine. It is noteworthy to mention here that there can be a reduction in
the utilization of animals in laboratory, if technical equipments are improved. It is also important
to improve techniques involved in data evaluation. For the purpose of refinement it is important

2USE OF ANIMALS IN SCIENTIFIC TESTING
to implement less invasive techniques for the purpose of reducing sufferings of animals (Marta
and Wilkins 715). For the purpose of replacing animal testing with alternative methods it is
important to conduct experiment on cell cultures rather than on living animals as a whole.
In the conclusion, it can be stated that while some researchers are of the opinion that
conducting experiments on animals can prove to be beneficial for humanity while others opined
that the level of animal suffering involved in these experiments are so high that it becomes
unbearable. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that, animal experiments do create harmful
impact on their health however; with proper implementation of various regulations it can be
ensured that animal testing should be executed in a humane way.

3USE OF ANIMALS IN SCIENTIFIC TESTING
References:
Burden, Natalie, et al. "Adverse Outcome Pathways can drive non‐animal approaches for safety
assessment." Journal of Applied Toxicology 35.9 (2015): 971-975.
Denayer, Tinneke, Thomas Stöhr, and Maarten Van Roy. "Animal models in translational
medicine: Validation and prediction." New Horizons in Translational Medicine 2.1 (2014): 5-11.
Grundy, David. "Principles and standards for reporting animal experiments in The Journal of
Physiology and Experimental Physiology." The Journal of Physiology 593.12 (2015): 2547-
2549.
Mak, Isabella WY, Nathan Evaniew, and Michelle Ghert. "Lost in translation: animal models
and clinical trials in cancer treatment." American journal of translational research 6.2 (2014):
114.
Rychert, Marta, and Chris Wilkins. "Is the recent ban on animal testing of legal high products a
fatal blow to the development of a legal market for ‘low‐risk’psychoactive products in New
Zealand?." Addiction 110.4 (2015): 714-715.
Tang, Alexander, Gary Thickbroom, and Jennifer Rodger. "Repetitive transcranial magnetic
stimulation of the brain: mechanisms from animal and experimental models." The
Neuroscientist 23.1 (2017): 82-94.