Many critics assert that all tests conducted on animals are unethical and should be illegal. Many others think that the pursuit of science may justify animal testing. I believe that animal testing can not be justified under any circumstances.
Supporters of the idea that animal testing may help create scientific developments suggest that the cumulative knowledge of humanity should be expanded no matter the cost, arguing that sacrifices need to be made in the forms of lab rats, shelter dogs and more. However this stance neglects the fact that scientific progress has enabled us to conduct testing through simulations rather than on vulnerable animals. This technology perfectly mimicks the real life biological responses of humans and might even become more reliable in drug tests. I do not condone multi-billion dollar companies prioritising shareholder profits over living beings.
On the other hand, people who condemn animals being subjects to scientific trials suggest that animals are not inferior to humans and should not be subject to the whims of mankind. There are efforts to categorize products by labelling companies and institutions who are not complicit in animal harm as “cruelty free”. Many actively seek out brands who do not engage in acts of harm on animals, prompting companies to scramble to stop the harmful practices through their boycotts. For instance, many brands have adopted approaches of testing done on simulations or on volunteers, earning the title. Support for the development of new ways of assesing the safety of products is on the rise.
In conclusion, the ongoing debate divides many; however, the moral obligation to protect the vulnerable dictates mine and many others’ choices in purchasing. Increasing support for “cruelty free” products and the growing awareness campaigns may help the practice be outlawed or phased out.