Many companies use animals to test products they are about to release, putting the lives of many animals in jeopardy. Millions of animals are forced into painful methods of testing in laboratories that result in physical and psychological damage to the subjects. Animal testing must end and in its place should be methods that are less harmful and more healthy. Although animal testing has led to new cures in the medical industry, the practice is cruel and inhumane with many of the animals being victims of burns, wounds, dehydration, and even death. An example of this cruelty is by a statistic from PETA that over “100 million animals suffer and die in the U.S. every year in cruel chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics tests,”. The effects are devastating
…show more content…
Many large businesses depend on animals, and any proposed alternatives seem inadequate. Conditions needed to test products on body parts can be different than the live animals themselves.
Luckily, alternative methods are opening doors for companies to use in order to replace the need for animals. In an article published by The New York Times in 2007 titled “Saving the Animals: New Was to Test Products”, “...volunteers get microdoses of potential drugs that can be analyzed but cause no ill effects” and “genetically engineered rodents provide an alternative to the testing of solutions in rabbits’ eyes for contamination,”.
Many benefits come with these alternatives, such as cheaper costs and more accurate readings. This offers companies an incentive to use the new methods that allow animals to live healthier lives.
Scientists and business people are not the only ones that can spark a change. In schools around the globe, dissection is a common lab exercise for students to learn about animal anatomy. The subjects used for the dissections are killed by harmful chemicals that hurt them and harm the environment. More humane ways of teaching the science curriculum should replace the countless dissection labs
Many large businesses depend on animals, and any proposed alternatives seem inadequate. Conditions needed to test products on body parts can be different than the live animals themselves.
Luckily, alternative methods are opening doors for companies to use in order to replace the need for animals. In an article published by The New York Times in 2007 titled “Saving the Animals: New Was to Test Products”, “...volunteers get microdoses of potential drugs that can be analyzed but cause no ill effects” and “genetically engineered rodents provide an alternative to the testing of solutions in rabbits’ eyes for contamination,”.
Many benefits come with these alternatives, such as cheaper costs and more accurate readings. This offers companies an incentive to use the new methods that allow animals to live healthier lives.
Scientists and business people are not the only ones that can spark a change. In schools around the globe, dissection is a common lab exercise for students to learn about animal anatomy. The subjects used for the dissections are killed by harmful chemicals that hurt them and harm the environment. More humane ways of teaching the science curriculum should replace the countless dissection labs