*95% of animals used for experiments are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act, the only act governing animal testing. Laws protecting animals need to include test animals used for experiments and these laws should be more strongly enforced. In order to minimize the number of animals used for testing and make sure they are not mistreated, the laws need to make it harder for researchers to use animals, making alternatives more appealing.
Many people would agree that animal testing is morally wrong. As animal rights activist Justin Goodman puts it, "Mice are like us in all the ways that matter, so they're used as stand-ins for humans - but the moral significance of those similarities is ignored." Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice …show more content…
This is true, but it overlooks that someone will still have to be the first human to test the product regardless. The Food and Drug Administration requires some testing, but there are alternatives that cost less and take less time, and are more accurate than animal testing. Harvard's Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering has created “organs on chips” which are made with living human cells. These chips can replace animal testing in the future. Wyss researchers wrote on the organs-on-chips project page, "Clinical studies take years to complete and testing a single compound can cost more than $2 million. Meanwhile, innumerable animal lives are lost, and the process often fails to predict human responses." In conclusion, in order to end animal testing, it needs to be harder to violate the Animal Welfare Act and more appealing to consider alternatives. Professor Charles R. Magel says, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because they are like us,’ ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are not like
Many people would agree that animal testing is morally wrong. As animal rights activist Justin Goodman puts it, "Mice are like us in all the ways that matter, so they're used as stand-ins for humans - but the moral significance of those similarities is ignored." Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice …show more content…
This is true, but it overlooks that someone will still have to be the first human to test the product regardless. The Food and Drug Administration requires some testing, but there are alternatives that cost less and take less time, and are more accurate than animal testing. Harvard's Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering has created “organs on chips” which are made with living human cells. These chips can replace animal testing in the future. Wyss researchers wrote on the organs-on-chips project page, "Clinical studies take years to complete and testing a single compound can cost more than $2 million. Meanwhile, innumerable animal lives are lost, and the process often fails to predict human responses." In conclusion, in order to end animal testing, it needs to be harder to violate the Animal Welfare Act and more appealing to consider alternatives. Professor Charles R. Magel says, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because they are like us,’ ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are not like