It may seem funny to some people that testing genetically modified techniques on animals is right but in my eyes, it isn't. No animal or human self or forced volunteered should undergo testing for science. Wanna make a contribution to save our environment? Nope. Among others, it can help us to understand certain diseases and how to treat and cure them properly. Thus, it is crucial that this kind of research is carried out with great care in order to avoid those unpleasant surprises. For instance, if your dog or your cat gets sick, you may have to see a veterinarian in order to cure that disease. Especially in countries where animal testing may contradict with religious aspects, those kinds of tests may even be prohibited by law. Here are the top five reasons why it needs to stop: 1. None of the thousands of experiments conducted on animals every year at universities are required by law. For these reasons, scientists can confidently apply the results of a panoply of medical experiments on animals to human beings and be more confident when it's time to experiment on humans directly in clinical trials. Each side of the debate has its points. According to the Humane Society International, animals are routinely force-fed, forced to inhale noxious compounds, deprived of food and water, physically restrained for prolonged periods, and burned; some of them reportedly even have their necks broken and are decapitated. Most research projects are unregulated by the government. There are already sufficient safety data and many non-animal methods available to make animal testing obsolete for these products. For instance, a mouse may only live for a few years, while humans live for many decades. This page titled 8.10: Animal Testing Should Be Banned is shared under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Nathan Nobis (Open Philosophy Press) via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request. On Sept. 10, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would move away from requiring the testing of potentially harmful chemicals on animals, a decision that was hailed by animal rights. In UK, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 defined regulated procedures as animal experiments that could potentially cause "pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm".
