Can animal testing ever be justified under a pretense? I think that causing harm to an animal for the advancement of the medical field is not only appropriate but in some cases it is necessary. Animal testing saves a lot of money for scientists in the medical field and also saves many human lives with the breakthroughs they discover.
Although many people who are against this research say that using an animal other than a human for testing to be considered specism, they have looked past the advancements that have came from testing animals. Specism is natural and is almost impossible to stop. By eating meat of other animals or even having a pet or riding a horse we are partaking in some sort of specism. The human mind is naturally programmed to use animals in a way that is beneficial to us so we can’t argue to stop something that has been happening since the first human stepped foot onto this planet. In many experiments there have been protest because people say that the members of many animal-use committees are biased toward the use of animals in questionable experiments. Assuming that someone on a board that is supposed to protect animals against bad experiments is biased shows some ignorance to the situation. Animal liberation groups are too close-minded in their opinions and accusations toward this subject. Peter Singer, a fond supporter of animal liberation, states that “fifteen years of giving electric shocks to animals may not have produced valid results”, but what to him are not valid results is to the psychologist a breakthrough. Specism is only natural for humans to partake in and almost every one of us does so I don’t think that this point should be able to stop the research that we can gain from animal testing.
Animal testing may be considered bad but look at the bright side and all the people that have kept their lives from the research made. As R. J. Frey states “refine experiments in order to diminish animal suffering and...