Corbin 1

Ashley Corbin
Mrs. Debock
English 4

Animal Testing to Stay Alive

For years, scientist have used varieties of animals, from cats and dogs, mice and rats, and
closer ancestries to homo-sapiens, such as chimpanzees for biomedical sciences. Even though,
these testings are unsafe and most of the testings are unsuccessful, medical researchers are
continuing to perform animal testings, in hopes of finding cures for diseases. Although humans
often benefit from successful animal research, the pain, the suffering, and the deaths of animals
are not worth the possible human benefits. Many people can argue that animal testing is good for
discovering cures for many illnesses and disease, does that mean performing these test on
innocent animals morally correct? Animals and humans deserve the same rights, including to be
freed from exploitation.
Since the industrialized years of humans, medical research was increasing and was in the
need of cures for illnesses and diseases. As a result of the industrialized times, animals began to
play a role as a friendly house hold pet, entertainment and most importantly, they became useful
for medical research to benefit humans. Issitt and Newton explain, Through generations of
breeding and artificial selection, humans transformed animals into agricultural commodities by
reducing their independence through taming techniques while making them more useful to

Corbin 2

human culture (Issitt and Newton). The use of innocent animals to suffer for biomedical
research became a moral crisis across the world. And because of this uprising crisis, the idea of
animal exploitation came into play. According to Aronson, Rarely can you exploit an animal
without causing it to suffer (Aronson). Causing an animal to suffer can range from death to
simply removing a specific animal from its natural habitat. Depending on the amount of suffering
animals acquire, they have rights that come into play just like humans. In Aronsons article, she
states, If we find it morally repugnant to inflict pain on fellow humans because of their capacity
to suffer, then we should be t y averse to inflicting pain on animals that share the same capacity
to suffer (Aronson). Based on the capacity to suffer, animals should be allowed to experience
pain and suffering in their own natural habitat and should not be exploited by humans.
Besides that fact that animals deserve the freedom of exploitation, many argue that
animals have less value than humans. And if animals hold a lesser value than humans, they dont
deserve any rights. So does that mean humans with disabilities have a lesser value than a
normal human? These arguments is what conducts a moral crisis. In Issitt and Newtons
article, they state, For instance, proponents of animal rights may hold that it is immoral for
humans to dominate, own, or exploit animals or that humans have a moral obligation to protect
vulnerable creatures from exploitation (Issitt and Newton). Issit and Newtons Statement is
interpreted that animals and humans deserve the same rights, including to be freed from
exploitation. Humans should not dominate animal rights by using them for medical research.