Animal Testing

Decades have passed by with the heated debate of whether animals should be used in research to assess the safety of products and medicines in health care. People feel differently about animals. Some love being in the company of dogs, cats, guinea pigs, etc. Others like researchers and scientists like to look at them as a means for conducting experimental research. No matter how different people look at animals, the bottom line remains that animals are used by researchers and cosmetics companies. The use of animals in research is advantageous to mankind. But the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals is not worth the benefits when alternative methods for such research could demonstrate equal results. Consequently, animals should not be in research

Humane Society International has shown that animals used in testing research lab are treated with much force in feeding and having them inhale. During such practice, they are bereaved of food and water. They undergo prolonged periods of physical stress, sustain burns and other types of wounds in facilitating the study of a healing process. They are exposed to pain in order to study its effects and remedies and “killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation or other means” (“About Cosmetics”). Many cosmetic companies use Draize eye test to evaluate irritation caused by shampoo and other products. This involves testing in rabbits. Their eyelids are kept open by clips for many days in a way that they cannot blink (Jim). This is atrocity. Animals tolerate pain for the benefit of humans. This is a harsh practice. There are other methods available that can be used instead of testing on animals. In-vitro testing, is the process by which cultures cultivated in a petri dish, produce better results than animal testing. This is because human cells can directly be used for yielding more precise results (Rogers). Microfluidic chips is an advanced technology that can be utilized, that simulates the activities, mechanics and physiological