Animal Experimentation And The Cosmetic Industry And...

Experimentally Cruel Animal experimentation has long standing roots in human history, specifically in the cosmetic industry and medical professions. Many could argue that humanity could not have progressed to today’s advancements without a heavy reliance on animal experimentation. There are some notable cases throughout history where such testing was undeniably beneficial, although it could certainly be argued that such methods were not always necessary. With significant advancements in scientific technology and medical practices animal testing should no longer be considered necessary or a morally defensible practice. Due to biological differences between humans and animals, experimentation on animals creates inaccurate results, making†¦show more content†¦It was only through human studies that the link between tobacco consumption and cancer, heart disease, and other pulmonary illnesses was proved† (Rossell). In this instance animals experimentation was ineffect ive in benefiting humans, it failed to prove the correlation between disease and nicotine consumption, and failed to adequately warn of all the potential health risks. Unfortunately, there are countless other examples that show the results of animal testing inaccurately translating to human biology. The opposition may argue that testing on animals is best because it could save human lives which are more important than an animals, but there are countless studies that prove this is a false way of thinking. â€Å"The Food Drug Administration tells us that 92% of drugs tested safe and effective in animals fail in human trials† says John J. Pippin, M.D., who is on the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Pippin also notes the example of Vioxx, a medication developed to treat arthritis which â€Å"killed more Americans than died in the Vietnam War, yet it was deemed safe in eight studies using six animal species. Many drugs have had severe and even lethal effects in pe ople after demonstrating safety in animal tests†. It is not surprising that there is little correlation between animal study results have significantly different effects in humans. According to Peter Singer, it is