Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

It is 2019, and animals shouldn’t be the test subjects to attain the results scientists want! Hundreds of animals are often disposed of without a second thought by researchers every day. Even though the animals are protected through ethical guidelines, their lives mean so much more than being an experiment subject. By looking into other options for animal testing such as computer models, microorganisms, and cell/tissue cultures, using laboratory animals will be nearly nonexistent. Using such alternatives will save money and be more time-efficient.

Providing replacements for animals during experiments such as microorganisms could potentially save money for research facilities. With the help of different options, there wouldn't be as many expenses for running test centers. Some of these expenses pertain to housing and transportation for the animals. While at the facility, it is the facility's responsibility to provide treatment and to take care of the basic needs of the animals. These types of expenses could be costly, depending on the number of test subjects. The article also mentions that there would be less need for a workforce (Molahally, Pasupuleti, & Salwaji, Jul-Aug 2016). There would be a decrease in the workforce because there wouldn't be a need for people to prepare housing, care, and transportation for the laboratory animals while they remain in the test center. In return, it would cut down on costs for running the research facility without all the needed bodies.

Another advantage of using other options rather than animals during test trials is time efficiency. By not using animals as test subjects, test centers could bypass animal research and ethical guidelines. Some animal research guidelines consist of providing training facilities and support to animal caretakers during operations. Following these, guideline takes time because proper training for the staff cannot be completed in one day. An example of an ethical guideline a researcher must follow is giving anesthesia to a laboratory animal if the trial causes distress or pain (Molahally, Pasupuleti, & Salwaji, Jul-Aug 2016). This guideline takes time because staff members could potentially have to put down multiple test subjects a day and could be overwhelming. Also, running trials of a medication on a test subject takes time to see the effects of the medication entirely. By using alternatives such as computer models, you can use specialized software to study the effectiveness of drugs and run several experiments in a fraction of the time as opposed to using animals.

Some may reason that using alternatives does not give the researcher the results that they need to be connected to using animal test subjects. Some might say that’s right because running trials on animals has contributed to many life-saving treatments. Some might even say that animals are an appropriate model for humans and that using them could benefit human medicine (Dondorp, Wybo; Goossens, Ellen; Jans, Verna; Mertes, Heidi; Pennings, Guido; et al, 2018). However, animal testing is inhumane and harsh because animals are restricted or even required to eat to accommodate the experimentation. So, more researchers must get more involved in using other options to protect animals further.

In conclusion, I have collected two credible scholarly journals to aid in my stance on protecting animals by using other alternatives. Animal testing is often disregarded, and when it comes down to it, there’s more harm done. By educating the alternatives about the public, they will see that it’s less costly and more time-efficient. If scientists began to incorporate other options, then the number of animals needed can be minimal, and the animals can be better protected. It’s up to the research faculties to make a significant transformation in using alternatives in their experiments. However, change starts with people spreading awareness of other options rather than animals for experiments.