One has to take ethical permissions to perform experiments on them. A poll of 3,748 scientists by the Pew Research Center found that 89% favored the use of animals in scientific research. Medical research has also been carried out on animals, and successfully developed new and effective medical treatments. Morris in 1895 in surgical procedures on women, yet history credits the discovery to Emil Knauer who reproduced the procedure in rabbits in 1896. The situation is much worse when an animal is harmed or even killed to test out a product that never contributed anything positive to mankind, and unfortunately this does happen. Some lose their limbs, eyesight, hearing ability, etc.
After several monkeys died in unmanned space flights carried out during the 1940s, the first monkey to survive a space flight was Yorick, recovered from an Aerobee missile flight on Sep. Governments are stepping in to determine what is being done to decide what exactly can be done to these animals and how far can researchers go in types of testing, the number of animals to be used and the way animals are cared for during the research. Scientist perform tests on animals to show the differences of new healing products and environmental safety of consumers and industrial products. While genetic testing may put us a great advantage scientifically, it could also be a set-back. The poll found that women are more likely to object, with 76% of women under 50 and 70% of women over 50 being opposed to animal testing, and 63% of men under and over 50 being opposed. Animals such as mice and rats have been found to have psychological and genetic similarities that relate to humans which make them perfect for the experimental trials. During the experiment process, the animals involved must be taken care of, and that means money for food, housing, and any other treatment needs.
Also, animals, like mice and rabbits, reproduce very quickly. The death of animals due to an experiment gone wrong is similar to murder of a human who was tested against his will. Another country may even be contracted to conduct the testing within the cosmetic company's homeland or it may be contracted out to a country where animal testing is not currently banned. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Though this is being restricted in most countries, still it is inevitable. Unless the product being tested is made for public consumption, detractors do not see the need for animal testing.
Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro ccounterparts and found animal tests were more expensive in every scenario studied. Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results. However, what many people tend to forget are the numbers of animal subjects that have suffered serious harm during the process of experimentation. As such, manufacturers will usually recommend a person use a sun protection factor of a minimum amount to safeguard skin and prevent damage and burning. This is, however, not always the case, and a certain number of these experiments are about trivial concerns, such as cosmetics tests. And animal testing has proven itself to be both practical and a reasonably accurate means of testing. Animals however, are never asked for their opinion and have never had their rights safeguarded.
When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. Some of these tests involve having their eyes forced open for days at a time and injection of harmful things underneath their skin. As such, they are essentially exempt from the regulations around cosmetics testing on animals. Some proponents of animal testing objected, arguing that some animal tests had no non-animal equivalents. The animals that are chosen for testing are not covered in this act. Although, it is claimed none of the animals were hurt in the test, but how can one be 100% sure? This has been one of the biggest and long running debates in society, and some countries are beginning to take action.
The testing ban on finished cosmetic products has been in effect since September 2004, and the testing ban on ingredients or a combination of ingredients came about in March 2009. People in the United States eat 9 billion chickens and 150 million cattle, pigs and sheep annually, yet we only use around 26 million animals for research, 95% of which are rodents, birds and fish. At present, cosmetics testing is generally faring well without the use of animal testing in areas where it is banned and hopefully, this trend will continue to take hold of other countries. In order to do so, they have publicized a number of animal tests that were urgently distasteful to the public, even if they were not examples of the norm in research: In the late 1990s in England at Huntingdon Life Sciences facility, employees were recorded hitting and screaming at dogs, as well as doing sexually repulsive things during the taking of blood samples. Animal testing in cosmetic industry as well as a household products is not worth the life of a poor animal. All in the name of saving human lives.
With the advent of modern molecular biology and its analytical methods, scientists can now quantify the precise extent to which humans resemble other animals, genetically speaking. Also, treatments that were developed using animals for testing include those for glaucoma, hip dysplasia and pacemakers for heart disease. This infectious disease renders the brain and spinal cord helpless while also ensuring a permanent case of paralysis to the victim. In vitro in glass testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. The benefits and improvements to modern medicine as a result of animal testing should be weighed heavily against the harmful and toxic ingredients used in such experiments and their detrimental effects on test subjects like rats and mice. Animal testing helps in figuring out the safety of drugs on humans, before scientists begin the human trail.
Minimize the cost: Animal testing decreases the cost significantly. This does not give us the right to use another life for our benefits. Bernard argued that experimenting on animals was ethical because of the benefits to medicine and the extension of human life. Expensive To Do Costs begin to add up when you truly think about animal testing. Both sides of this debate are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, making it increasingly difficult to come to an agreement of any sort.