Humans have a history of experimenting on animals, most often in the areas of medical and cosmetics. Humanity would not exist as it is today if animal experimentation was eliminated. The argument animal testing is useful cannot surpass its’ cruelty. With advancements in science and medical technology, animal testing no longer stands as a morally justifiable option. Animal testing lacks proof of necessity because it inhumanely abuses animals, carries inaccuracy, and is outdated. Animal experimentation is an abusive method of testing. Very minimal regulation in procedures can be done to animals during experimentation. Abuse defined as a verb, means to treat (a person or an animal) with violent cruelty, especially regularly or repeatedly. For research, animal abuse remains allowed legal: “the only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories, the Animal Welfare Act, allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain­damaged” (“Animal Testing is”). These methods are unbelievably cruel and abusive, as this suffering of the animals is intentional. Famous British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, famously proposed that “the question is not, can they reason? nor can they talk? but can they suffer?” The question asked, states that defenders of animal experimentation do not deny that animals suffer. Peter Singer, author of Animal

Liberation , explains that scientists cannot deny animal abuse, while the book stresses the similarities between humans and other animals to explain that experiments may be useful for human purposes. It is also states that “United States military experiments were designed so that many animals would suffer and die without any certainty that this suffering and death would save a single human life, or benefit humans in any way at all” (Animal Liberation 29). The uncertainty as to whether these experiments benefit humans, makes them extreme and abusive. Possibly the most infamous example of the brutality of animal experimentation, is the decompression chamber. Singer explains that Nazi researchers first used decompression chambers on humans in Nazi Germany. Later, English scientists repeated the experiments on pigs: “All suffered decompression sickness, and some died from these attacks” (Singer 83­84). The abusive research caused unnecessary suffering. Curiosity is not a reason to repeat inhumane Nazi research. Animal testing is abusive, destructive, and morally wrong. Animal tests prove to be inaccurate, because the testing environment skews the results. Accurate experiments only allow one variable. The test environment itself is often unaccounted for a variable. According to the New England Anti­Vivisection Society, “Stress routinely experienced by animals in labs, negatively influences the reliability of animal research data. Stress influences heart rate, pulse, blood pressure, muscular activity, and hormone levels and can modify the normal values of these variables significantly” (“Limitations and Dangers”). This means that the research environment interferes with the normality of animals’ bodily functions. If normality can’t be recognized, then any changes from a normal state can’t be

 recognized either. Stress is only one of the many affected factors related to animal testing. “In one study, researchers discovered that not only is stress a common factor in mice in labs, just having a researcher present can alter a mouse’s behavior, but they also experience ‘sympathy pains’ for the mice surrounding them. ‘In other words, seeing another mouse in distress elevates the amount of distress the onlooker displays’” (“Limitations and Dangers”). The general research environment makes the mice behave differently than they would, even if they are with other mice or by themselves. Animal testing is inaccurate because of actively changing environments, insufficiency in animals’ bodily functions, and unstable variables. Animal experimentation is an outdated method. These days, a good portion of the world has accounted that animal testing is unnecessary. For example, “a complete ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing has taken effect in the European Union. The ban applies to all new cosmetics and their ingredients sold in the EU, regardless of where in the world testing on animals was carried out. The 27 EU countries have had a ban on such tests in place since 2009. But the EU Commission is now asking the EU's trading partners to do the same” (“EU Bans”). The immense majority of Europeans determined that animal testing is unnecessary and unwanted. The ban made in 2009 has not changed the continuous development of Europe, which means that European women can still wear safe and quality makeup if they choose to do so. Another example is the medical industry, “Australia, Japan, and the E.U. have already banned or limited experiments on great apes in medical research” (Biba 14). Also, because other methods have been said to be better, “the National Institutes of Health announced that it is phasing out experiments on chimpanzees” (Biba 14). These changes that are generally limited only to great apes, point the way in which the medical field will go. Animal

 experimentation is an outdated method because there are now more ways to test items, an immense amount of bans being created, and now deemed unnecessary because of more newfound options. Today, there are many practical alternatives to animal testing that are available. A large portion of the world is cancelling out the use of animal experiments, but the out of date use of this method of research and testing will not leave the scientific and medical areas without ways to find new answers or determine the safety of products. Along with that, substitute research methods are cheaper than any animal experimentation, because they mean not having to provide housing, feeding, and maintaining the lives of the animals. The existence of this makes any need for animal testing unnecessary. From what has been formed in evidence, ignorance is not bliss, especially for the animals that continue to have research done on them. There is although, a more ethical future for research and discovery. As the cliché saying goes, “two wrongs do not make a right”. Because animal testing inhumanely abuses animals, carries inaccuracy, and continues to be outdated, it is clearly unnecessary as it is no longer morally justified.

 Works Cited “Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint.” PETA. Web. 21 Jan. 2015 Biba, Erin. “From Chimp to Chip.” Popular Science Dec. 2013: Web. 21 Jan. 2015 EU Bans Sale of All Animal­tested Cosmetics.” BBC News. 11 March 2013. Web. 21 Jan. 2015 “Help End Nicotine Experiments on Monkeys at OHSU.” Vivisectioninfo.org. Web. 21 Jan. 2015 “Limitations and Dangers.” NEAVS. Web. 21 Jan. 2015 Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 1975. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Web. 21 Jan. 2015