Should animal testing be banned ?

In 2012, animal testing is – and has been for quite some time – one of the most common methods for developing products like cosmetics and medicines. You may think that this sounds like a good thing, producing medicines to help the sick in the future and cosmetics to make yourself look a few years younger: and maybe it is, but the way that animal testing has, and still is being carried out is disgraceful and unacceptable.

'Forced euthanasia'

Now, you're probably wondering why they don't test medicines and cosmetics and whatever else industry is producing for human consumption on just that – humans. Well, it's because it'll rarely be right first time, and due to that, people believe that it is the job of scientists to test these products on animals of similar evolutionary build to ourselves. However, as long as the animals are treated humanely and fairly, you'd wonder what the problem is, right? The problem is that these products are very rarely right first time, and they may have unwarranted effects on the user of the product: so they test it on animals first, a process which can and does kill many animals on a regular basis for the sake of testing entirely.

However, we could test the product on the human race to see if it actually works for us, but because we can interact and connect with those of our species, we find it more difficult to perform operations like testing on them, especially when there's a fair likelihood that the prototype product could cause problems for the human, including the one that nobody wants to see – death. However, because of the fact that it's an impeccably dangerous procedure to be testing previously untested creams and pills – our superiority complex as a race comes into play – we go for the one that cannot object and cannot fight back. The small animals that are used for testing in laboratories across the world, with little regards for their safety or health in the pursuit of a better future for mankind.

'Animal abuse'

While I'm not going to go out and make a statement saying that all animals that are used in laboratories are abused and hurt on a regular basis, it's an unavoidable fact that many animals are in laboratories – they're kept in extremely small spaces, sometimes too small for them to even move around as they wait for the next line of lipstick to come around, sometimes with injuries and obesity caused by the lack of exercise, and extreme levels of boredom eating away at their deprived brains.

The fact that the animals they use are sometimes used because of their trusting nature is also frankly disgusting – and I'd hate to be one of the animals a victim of misplaced trust, especially with no hope of rescue or escape. I can only imagine the lives of the poor animals being tested on in a place not known for its devotion to animal rights to be one of sadness and hurt.

Now, of course not all of the clinics where animal testing takes place are like this, but surely the fact that some are should be enough to make people raise their hand in disagreement with animal testing, or will people – like you and I, continue to turn the other cheek because we want our cheap products – and animals are helping us get to those ideals: they don't demand inflated pay for their work.

'Is there an alternative?'

This is where the issues come in, there are no really alternatives to animal testing, at least none that are any better in the ethics department than animal testing – we could test on humans, but that would spark an outrage that would be extraordinarily hard to beat down amongst human rights activists, just as animal testing sets off the activists in the animal department. To test these products, we need to have them tested on something living, lest we know if there are harmful effects to the product, and where do we go for testing on humans – most people would not willingly lay down their lives for the sake of medical science – and then what? Do we delve into the terrible world of unethical conduct like using death row inmates in America for testing so that the convicted can extend their lives just days longer?

The only less ethically questionable alternative to animal testing is stem cell testing, but that's already underfire from religious critics that believe we are transitioning into a level of medical understanding that we are playing God. There will always be opposition, for every alternative we come up with until such a point that it does not feature anything living, which is practically impossible because of the nature of the tests that need to be performed.

'So should it be banned?'

Banning animal testing would be the ethically correct thing to do, but then how would we progress, there would be no alternative that would be greeted with less criticism – at least for now. The different alternatives would be a better deal for the animals, but a bad deal for us as humans – because humane methods are going to take a while to be developed, and all alternatives need to be performed on living things anyway.

Personally, I feel that we should be looking into alternatives to animal testing, and be banning animal testing soon, but for now, we'll be risking our advancement as a species by banning this method of testing – but personally I believe we should stop testing on living specimens as quickly as possible, and replacing it with another, humane alternative – because testing on anything living is and never will be properly acceptable, and never has been.