In an effort to improve our living conditions, people have experimented with a range of treatments, items, and procedures over the years. Animal testing probably dates back millennia, yet it remains a controversial topic in modern society. This essay will attempt to provide an overview of scenarios in which animal experiments may be acceptable or inappropriate.
On the one hand, defenders of animal research believe that major advances in battling diseases, infections, and other ailments would not have been achievable without animal research. This is because testing products on healthy humans is inhumane, and computer modelling to predict reactions is a relatively new technology that is not as reliable as animal testing. Without animal testing, medical advancements would have been inconceivable, and the majority of individuals would agree that the sacrifice was worthwhile.
Opponents argue, on the other hand, that studies undertaken simply for cosmetic goals do not justify the use of innocent animals. This is mostly due to two factors: first, it is believed that a substantial body of knowledge has been gathered from previous studies; and second, there are alternatives, such as dermatological testing and the use of natural components. For example, retail companies such as Lush and The Body Shop have gained millions by marketing themselves as natural alternatives to animal research. In view of the ultimate purpose of animal testing and the available alternatives, it is apparent that animal experimentation in this circumstance is completely unethical.
In conclusion, if the situation poses a risk to humans and computer-based alternatives are unavailable, it would be ethical to do animal tests. However, the killing of animals is deeply immoral when research is driven by weak grounds and acceptable alternatives exist.
