YES – Aaron Cole 

I look at the gains and losses of using animals in research and see a dilemma that humans have been struggling with for centuries.

What it comes down to is the judgement of whether or not the benefits of animals in the scientific process is worth the ethical costs of possibly putting animals in danger.

The ethics of risking an animal’s life in the testing of a vaccine is much different from that of an eyeliner, but I trust researchers at an individual basis to be able to make the judgement call on the ethics of what is necessary to public health and what is necessary to turn a profit.

I also trust that protections like the Animal Welfare Act, which establishes mandatory inspections and standards, and other state and federal laws adequately discourage abuse.

Abuse-free testing is essential in the judgement of whether animal trials are ethical. In which case, we can continue reap the benefits of testing, and continue to learn from the humane use of animals in research.

Animal testing is extremely important in the testing of product ingredients on living organisms, not only just humans.

Rather than releasing products into public hands based on an assumption of safety, product testing on animals helps scientists foresee the negative effects that products may have on consumers, wildlife and environments in which they are used.

People can be quick to overlook the main reasons companies use animals in their research and disregard the benefits of the practice.

People often prefer to focus on a case of an animal death rather than an environmental crisis avoided by identifying toxic combinations in a product.

The question arises whether its ethical to sacrifice the life of one thing to save the lives of many more.

Animal testing provides increased safety to both humans and protects the stability and sanctity of the environment. The benefits are ultimately too significant  for the practice to be completely abandoned.

NO – Corinne Capodagli

Each day, animals all over are forced to undergo traumatizing and often detrimental experiments that put them in harm’s way and compromise their health and well-being. Amidst cries for this testing to stop, some refuse to head the plain truth: animal testing is not only an unpractical form of testing, but is also unethical.

Recent studies have found that animal testing isn’t an accurate gauge for the effectiveness of a product.

According to PETA, of the products deemed safe and effective in animal trials, only eight percent of these same products were deemed advantageous and successful   in human trials. This data demonstrates that animals aren’t even ideal for testing products made for human consumption.

Additionally, animal testing is a large monetary up taking, funded by millions of taxpayer dollars. This raises the question of why we rely on this form of experimentation when there are more cost efficient and effective alternatives. The New England Anti Vivisection Society, or NEAVS, claims that there are more preferable options.

Among them for example, is In Vitro testing  which “relies on human cell and tissue cultures.” This form of testing, and others similar to it, prove to be more cost efficient and eliminate the need to experiment on animals entirely.

Furthermore, being a test subject is no way for any animal to live. Laboratory animals are often subjected to a life between cages and animal pens.

This means that they’re at a loss for any external stimuli. This isn’t healthy for any animal, for whom it’s necessary to engage in activities in the outside environment.

If animals, similar to humans, spend large amounts of time inside, it can become damaging and lead to long term health problems.

As animal testing continues, we are forced to face our moral obligations. Is it ever right to subject any living creature to a life of experimentation  when there are more effective options.