Our Turn Column: Is it morally right to test products on animals?

Kalamazoo Gazette staff By Kalamazoo Gazette staff The Kalamazoo Gazette
Follow on Twitter
on May 28, 2011 at 7:41 AM
Rachael LeFevre.jpgRachael LeFevre
By Rachael LeFevre

Sad puppy dog eyes fill the screen as Sarah McLachan's "Angel" swells in the background. Statistics about animal abuse shock the viewer as kittens with injured paws plead for help. We have all seen these ASPCA commercials detailing the abuse of innocent animals. Many people believe testing products on animals only adds to the numbers of ill-treated animals.

Using animals has long been a way for researchers to test products before introducing them for human use. Instead of possibly harming humans in the trial of merchandise, companies use animals to test their products. While many animal activists oppose such measures, it is important to remember the alternative to testing on animals is harming humans.

I love animals, but I'm also a realist. If we decide to test new products on humans, how many people will die in the process? Would we rather risk the lives of human beings than those of animals.

That said, testing on animals should only be used when absolutely necessary. The Federal Drug Administration says on its website, "Research and testing (should) derive the maximum amount of useful scientific information from the minimum number of animals and employ the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability."

When performing tests on animals, researchers should use the most ethical procedures possible and eliminate any unnecessary risks. If researchers know the products could cause death or severe injury, animal testing should not be an option. Instead, the company should continue work on the product before needlessly harming animals.

Opponents of animal testing argue that animals have no way to consent to experimentation, and therefore, using innocent creatures in product testing is absolutely unethical. However, many advances in vaccines and medicines have come from conducting tests on animals. If scientists hadn't done that, many useful discoveries would not have occurred.

While no one wants to add more animals to those ASPCA commercials, animal testing, in an ethical way, is acceptable and necessary

Rachael LeFevre is a senior at Portage Central High School.

Emma Caldwell.jpgEmma Caldwell

By Emma Caldwell

Because I am a vegetarian, many assume I am an animal rights activist. However, I approve of animal testing because the tests the animals endure have the potential to cure diseases.

The first vaccine was created in large part because of a cow. The Latin word vaca means cow. Edward Jenner inoculated a young boy, James Phipps, with the waste from cowpox blisters, a less serious but very similar disease to smallpox. Jenner then exposed James to smallpox. James did not contract smallpox.

Animals and humans have a long relationship in the search for a healthier world. Yet as responsible humans, we need to decide whose life is more valuable - a cow's, or our own? Is a cow's comfort worth the millions of people who died from smallpox?

Imagine you are driving around a curve when you see a young boy riding his bike on the side of the road. In the middle of the road a dog is running along with the boy.

Do you swerve and clip the dog with the front tire knowing the boy will live many years and the dog another seven but without a leg? Or do you hit the boy and avoid the dog? The first option is the most appealing and less morally repugnant.

Yet, when the same question is asked in terms of animal testing, some have a more difficult time coming to the same conclusion, maybe because it is not a snap judgment or maybe because they don't have to balance the scales directly. Still one is an animal and the other a human. One has the potential ability to cure AIDS, and the other can withstand the testing for the AIDS vaccine.

I don't believe in unnecessary harm toward animals. But the testing on animals saves lives, so I believe it should be continued.

How else are we going to discover whether many newly developed medications and vaccines can be used safely?

Emma Caldwell is a senior at Gull Lake High School.

Julie Williams.jpgJulie Williams

By Julie Williams

Is that toothpaste you're using worth a life? How about that new shade of lipstick or those M&Ms you're popping into your mouth? Because of testing done on animals in creating these products, there's a conflict created between what we want and what's right. Animal testing is a gross injustice to God's creatures and is a cruel stepping stone for human advancement.

Just think of poor, defenseless animals suffering in labs, trying to survive, only to be killed for our products. What gives companies the right to torture these poor creatures and what entitles the researchers who deem this practice OK?

Many of the tests that are conducted, especially on Mars Candy Company products, aren't even necessary. Is a life not a life? Who takes it upon themselves to possess the power to destroy life? Furthermore, why wage such cruel experiments on poor, helpless creatures? Animal testing is one of the most vile human practices and cannot be defended in any way.

With all the technological advances and discoveries being made on a daily basis, it seems something could be done to eliminate animal testing. We consider ourselves to be one of the most advanced countries in the world, but how can we claim that title when, in our own laboratories, innocent lives are being taken on a daily basis?

America has made enormous technological advances and we've been gifted with so many brilliant minds. But with all those advances, it seems we should come up with a solution that better protects the lives of these animals. When America finally owns up to what's taking place in its labs, the rest of the world will likely follow.

Planet Earth should be a place of freedom and happiness for all forms of life. No one person or company should have the power to condemn animals to a life of suffering and fear.

Animal testing is wrong. It's a practice that needs to be eliminated immediately.

Julie Williams is a senior at Otsego High School.

High school students representing 17 high schools and the Home School association in southwestern Michigan schools serve on the Kalamazoo Gazette's Young Editorial Staff (YES), which is coordinated by freelance writer Phyllis Rose. The students pick their own discussion topics. The views expressed in Our Turn are solely those of the students, not the Gazette.