Opposing Viewpoints
Should we ban cosmetic testing on animals?
Main Claim: Animal testing is better for research than creating new, alternative methods.
Reason 1: Creating new forms of testing that do not involve animals are extremely expensive.
Grounds: Analysts estimate that businesses spent $716 million in 2006 on these alternative-testing techniques, and L’Oreal alone spent more than $800 million by purchasing two companies, Episkin and SkinEthic, which make alternative tests.
Warrant: Companies want to save money when it comes to testing methods.
Reason 2: Not all experiments work on human cell samples in test tubes.
Grounds: David B. Warheit, researcher of potential hazards of new nano-scale materials at DuPont seed production company explains that when DuPont researchers injected fullerness (carbon nano-particles) into human cells the particles were easily able to slip inside of the cell, ultimately destroying it. On the other hand, when the fullerness was injected into the lungs of rats, they were able to record the results and the animals’ immune system removed the nano-particles before any permanent damage was done.
Warrant: Consumers and researchers want to preform tests that will give the most accurate results possible.
Main Claim: Replacing animals in the lab with recreated tissue cells are not viable solutions.
Reason 1: It is unlikely that cell and tissue cultures can sufficiently replace animals in the long run.
Grounds: “Most scientists who work with cell lines know that they are full of chromosomal anomalies; even cells from the same line in two laboratories are not necessarily biologically identical. Cell-based tests also have other limitations: they assume that the cell type in which side effects manifest is known; that there are no interactions between different cell types that are found in many tissues; and that culture conditions adequately mimic the whole organism. Even if cell-based tests could replace animal-based tests, there are still no alternative methods available to test for teratogenicity or endocrine-disrupting activity, which require animal-based tests over several generations (Gannon).”
Warrant: Consumers and researchers want tests to be preformed that will give the most accurate results possible.
Main Claim: Human lives are more important than animal lives.
Reason 1: Without testing products on animals, humans are unleashed to harmful side effects.
Grounds: Alison Abbot, author of Animal testing: More than a cosmetic change, reminds us that this test developed under a crisis condition where a 38- year-old woman had gone blind after dyeing her eyelashes with Lash-Lure, a product that contained a derivative of coal tar. Then came the calamity of thalidomide, which was given to pregnant women in the late 1950s to control morning sickness, but which caused horrific birth defects.
Warrant: Consumers want to purchase safe products that have been tested for ill side effects.
Main Claim: Animals are treated humanely in laboratories.
Reason 1: Current use of animals in research is highly regulated by governments and institutions.
Grounds: “Before animals are used in research, there is an extensive institutional review process of proposed methods to be used and how the animals will be affected to ensure that only the lowest number necessary will be used. It is important to note that any sustained administration of painful stimuli or improper care is counterproductive to practically all research goals. Abuses occur, but are rare, and the benefits of such research to people and animal welfare are enormous (Howard).”
Warrant: People want to know that animals are being treated humanely.
Reason 2: The life of an animal is better in the laboratory than it is in the wild.
Grounds: “Laboratory animals and livestock generally die prematurely, but they die relatively humanely and usually after a longer and greater quality of life in contrast to the natural world. Those who oppose any use of live animals in medical schools need to consider whether they would be willing to be the first animal and living flesh that their surgeon performed emergency surgery on. To me, the conquest of unsolved medical problems such as cancer, AIDS, other infectious diseases, and genetic, developmental, neurological and psychiatric conditions justify the current use of animals in research, as long as we treat them as humanely as possible (Howard).”
Warrant:
- People want animals to live a good life.
- People want to see unsolved medical problems cured.
Pro-animal testing poster