What's being debated
Millions of animals are used in experiments: tests of medicines, cosmetics, chemicals, and research. The text looks at the arguments used to defend this.
"It's necessary"
A common argument is that animal experiments are essential for science.
But there are many methods that don't use animals: computer models, cultures of human cells and tissues, studies of human populations, research with microorganisms, and others. And even when there's no replacement yet, that doesn't automatically give anyone the right to use animals.
"It works better"
Others say that, in some cases, using animals gives better results.
First: you can't compare them fairly. Methods without animals get very little money by comparison. If they got the same investment, they could be just as good or better.
Second: if working better justified everything, then it would be right to run the tests directly on humans, which would work even better. Nobody accepts that.
The double standard
Supporters of experiments find it acceptable to test on animals and unacceptable to test on humans under the same conditions, even though it would work better. To justify this, they'd have to say:
- either that animals' good doesn't matter at all, which the rules on experiments themselves deny, since they ask for some care toward animals;
- or that human interests always count more, however small. But that's speciesism, and it also contradicts the rules that say animal suffering counts.
In short
- There are many research methods that don't use animals.
- Effectiveness doesn't justify everything; if it did, we'd test on humans.
- Defending animal testing requires a double standard.