动物实验应该被禁止吗？AnimalTesting
Animal Testing Should Be Banned?
1. For hundreds of years, animals such as mice and monkeys have been experimented on for scientific and medical research. Mostly, animal testing is used for some procedures, drugs or other substances to observe if they will do harm to human beings. By doing so, some animals can not avoid suffering and even many die from it. It has remained one of the most questionable topics. Animal rights activists have long called on the government and society to absolutely ban any animal testing to protect animals’ rights. However, today I want to argue for the importance and necessity of the experiments on non-human creatures and show you the reasons why we should not ban animal testing completely.
2. First, we should thank the millions of animals dedicated to medical research throughout history,without which, we would probably not be alive now. One historical fact is that some medicine, such as influenza vaccine which has saved innumerous human beings’ lives in history, would not exist, but for animal testing. Because of animal testing, “both humans and
animals now have life-saving surgical procedures, cancer therapies, organ transplantation, vaccines, safe consumer products and treatments and cures for countless other medical disorders and diseases”(AALAS). “Most of our children have not even heard of many of the diseases our ancestors experienced first-hand. Why? They have either been eradicated or can be controlled due to findings from research using animals” (AALAS). Just imagine the picture: if there were no animal testing for medical research, we human beings could have been threatened with extinction in the battles against successive and subversive waves of deadly viruses and unruly bacteria.
3. Even today, many new drugs must be tested on different animals before they can be marketed and used on human beings. According to the current British law, every new drug must be tested on at least two different kinds of mammal animals (BBC), which indicates that animals are still necessary for drug testing.
4. Some people may criticize, “it is immoral and inhumane to make many innocent animals
suffer and even die from the experiments imposed on them.”It is partly true. Indeed, animal
experiments for cosmetics and animal abuses in the name of experimentation are generally opposed by us. Anyway humans’ beauty is much inferior to animals’ lives. I firmly reject that kind of experiments on animals. Yet when it comes to saving human beings’ lives and protecting men’s basic interests, we would rather use animals as testing subjects than use humans.
5. In some cases, it’s an either-or question: to test on animals or on human beings, when there are few other options under the current scientific circumstances. I believe that scientists are never blind to animals’suffering, and that they always take a comprehensive consideration before they decide on an animal for testing. Nobody of normal conscience wants an innocent life to perish. It’s only when we have no alternative methods that we have to use animals, but we try our best to minimize their pains during the testing. For example, offer the lab animals the best living conditions and use anaesthetics to reduce their suffering. We can make it possible to carry out experiments on animals without making them suffer much. Otherwise, it would be immoral to risk a human life when some medicine could be tested on a non-human animal.
6. Some people may rebut again: it is unequal to satisfy men’s interests by sacrificing animals’ interests. Actually, to tell the truth, in principle and also in practice, to achieve equality between humans and animals is difficult and even impossible.
7. Biologically, to achieve human-animal equality is against the principle of biological chain existing on earth, because it’s an undisputed truth that human beings are at the top of the chain, which means that it’s prescribed by the law of nature that the omnivore mankind feeds on other creatures. You can not criticize a fierce wolf’s cruelty to a mild little sheep because it is the law of nature that animals of higher level of the chain kill and feed on those of lower level of it. You can not call it “unequal”, just as you will not regard your act of eating chicken as “unequal” or “unacceptable”.
8. Morally, it’s such an irony that on one hand some people treat their pets such as cats or dogs as their family members and call on society to protect animals’rights, but on the other hand they never refuse a delicious beef steak. Is the life of a pet more important than that of a head of cattle? Then the equality they want to achieve is a hypocritical abstract one be
cause in practice it’s impossible. In a way, reducing human suffering is similar to stuffing humans’
stomachs since they are both basic human needs for survival. It’s acceptable to satisfy such human need as eating animals, so it should also be acceptable to satisfy such human need as reducing human suffering by animal testing. If one was suffering on a hospital ward, he would not care whether a cure is based on an animal’s suffering.
>unequal

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。