The definition for animal rights is the idea that animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic rights are is not suffering and that they should be afforded the same consideration as human beings.
With this definition in mind, I believe that animal testing is wrong. We have no right to value an animal’s life over our own. What gives us the right to use animals in such a way for our own wellbeing? Just because we have a higher intelligence, it doesn’t necessarily mean we are better than other animals on the planet. I think that using animals for testing is a pointless exercise, as even though some animals may have similar anatomies to our own, they are not completely the same; this means that even if you successfully tested a drug on an animal the results may not be the same for humans. For example, researchers have found a cure for cancer in mice, but it simply doesn’t work for humans. However, I do agree that drugs have to be tested, but only on things such a human tissue grown in a lab. I believe that this would be better as it will show what effect the drug in question would have on the human body, and it is more humane than testing on animals.
I feel that animal testing is definitely giving us information but it is not worth all the pain the animals are experiencing. Did you know some animals are not even properly sedated? In fact, almost ten per cent aren't and 9 % of the ones who are die. In research labs, animals are screamed at, hit, and stuffed in tiny cages when researchers are finished using them. It is also stated that 92% out of every 100 drugs that passed animal testing failed clinical trials on people. However, a lot of scientists have come to the conclusion that animal testing is outdated anyway, and they should consider more modern testing. They believe that we should be looking more into computer programs especially since you don't have to wait nearly as long for results and it is much...