Tactical Deniability

To kill an animal to find cures for various diseases, not to kill, to save the animals life. Animal testing is a rather controversial topic that still hasn t been resolved after many years of debate. Day after day, scientists experiment on animals to try and find cures, which benefits humans. Although, some tests aren t necessary and result into killing animals for no apparent reason, rather than to put them out of their misery. With many cures found, and making products safe for human use, behind it all are horrible cases of Animal abuse that is covered up in lies, and should stop. The people who are for animal testing don t realize the 1% difference really does mean life or death. Even though chimpanzees have 99% of the same DNA as humans, the 1% makes all the difference. For an animal as bright as a chimp (It s genetic package varies from our own by no more than 1 percent, most researchers agree), boredom and lack of social interaction is nothing less than cruelty, according to Goodall (Caras 57). Testing on chimps won t give us the right answers to the problem. Furthermore, most testing on chimps involve there immune system, which is different than a humans. Much of the research done on chimps involves their immune systems, current work on AIDS being an obvious example (Caras 57). Chimps might have a different form of AIDS than us. Lastly, stating a lot of un-necessary testing is being done not only on chimps, but other animals as well. An example of un-necessary testing would be on stress. Since scientists know that stress alters any animals power to respond to invading organisms, why do they stress chimps by confining them in isolation when research protocol

doesn t demand it? (Caras 57). If a test is un necessary to continue on, and scientists know this, then why do they continue? One of the most convincing arguments for and against animal testing is drug testing on animals. Trying to find cures for diseases, and testing it on animals give us false data. Vioxx, phenactin, E-ferol, orinfiex, zomax, suprol and selacryn are a few of the many drugs that appeared safe in animal tests, but were pulled from the market in recent years for causing the death or seriously harming thousands of people (Wilson V3). When testing on animals, the results may be false, due to the fact that our immune systems differ that that of a rat or a rabbit, etc. Currently, nine out of 10 experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies (Leavitt V3). If the drugs that are being tested on animals fail nine times out of 10 in clinical studies, then why do we still continue to argue that testing on animals benefit us; if we die from using drugs that were tested on animals, and not safe for us? Does un-necessary testing on animals really benefit us? By doing this, we ve just been harming the animals, and making them do things that we really don t need to be tested on. By force-feeding barbiturates to groups of cats for periods of several weeks, then cutting off their supplies (Geefrey 50). So, force-feeding animals for long periods of time, snd then cutting off their food supply was a necessary test to learn about addiction? Making animals suffer just to test what we already know? Even though scientists may find answers to some questions, is torturing the animal the way to go? Her cats would stand trembling [and] salivating after she suddenly stopped pumping into their stomachs how they would hiss at imagined tormentors

or collapse and die during or soon after periods of continuous convulsive activity (Siegel 50). The fact that animals are being put through this kind of torture is horrifying. Do these tests really benefit us? Or do we continue to do this because we might figure out something? With many cures found, and making products safe for human use, behind it all are horrible cases of animal abuse that is covered up in lies, and should stop. If a test is un-necessary, than why should we continue to test on animals, and put them through torture? Also, testing on animals doesn t give us accurate results. There immune system isn t the same as ours. That 1% difference does mean life or death. There s always another solution to topics, such as this one, but finding one that the majority of the people will agree upon is tricky. We should not test on animals, but test on humans. If we want to find out how something is going to affect a human(s), then why not test it on a human rather than an animal?

Works Cited
Wilson,Desorah. Testing on animals no longer suitable option. Arizona Republic 23 Ap. 2006:v3.

Cowley, Geefrey, et.al. Of Pain and Progress. Newsweek 26th of December, 1988, 50+.

Toll on the animal kingdom. Newsweek 260ec, 1988: 51

Fehr-Snyder, Kerry. Chandler animal lab brings jobs, protesters. Arizona Republic SAP. 2009:alt.