Some people argue that animal testing is needful whilst there are opponents who think that animal testing needs to be avoided as soon as it causes harm for animals. This essay will discuss both sides of an argument and conclude that it is indeed unfair.
At first, crucial aspect of animal testing, also known as vivo testing is that it helps to assure the safety and reliability of the medicines, make-up products and such chemicals before applying them into our daily lives. Recent studies showcase that research on animals helps to develop certain antibiotics or medications for surgical procedures. Besides, 88% of largest cosmetic brands are not cruelty-free and carry out their experiments in animals. Having said that this method convinces trustfulness of a drug, there are some data about vivo-tested medications treating diseases and saving people lives.
In contrast, it is recorded that most of the tests do not achieve its intended results. In such cases, people are doing nothing but harming the members of the fauna world. Furthermore, animal testing is cruel to animals and is an expensive method of research with accuracy often below 60 percent. While scientists think that animals are good alternatives for people, there are some possibilities that a human body might get affected or respond differently to animal-tested drugs and products since animals are not just simple humans. Those experiments often miss the important signs of health hazards and toxicity in humans.
All in all, most of the successful brands are using vivo testing to ensure the efficiency of their outcomes. Despite the fact that it is effective in particular areas, still it has more drawbacks and cons than its benefits. Knowing that scientists have alternatives to animal testing, it seems illogical to make use of this method and causing problems and damage to the environment. What I understood from the researches I have done about animal testing so far, is that it is rather expensive and time-consuming test than non-animal testing experiments.