A person in a pristine white lab coat carries a syringe over to a sterile medical table. On the table sits an infant chimpanzee. It is terribly malnourished, and its ribs are clearly visible through its black and brown coat. The scientist plunges the syringe into the chimpanzee’s abdomen, while the chimp yelps in pain. A few minutes pass by. Those minutes transform into hours. After a long period of waiting, the chimpanzee lies dead on the table. The scientist checks a box off on a clipboard, and disposes of the dead creature. Even though many people believe that animals are helpful test subjects, the research that they are used for is unreliable, the lab animals are mistreated, and the results from the tests run on them are conflicting and dangerous.

According to the article “Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” from ProCon.org, “Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex. Studying cell cultures in a petri dish, while sometimes useful, does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system…Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs.” This may be true, but “Animal Experimentation” from worldbookonline.com states that “Many people argue for stricter laws to prevent the mistreatment of laboratory animals. Critics of animal experimentation also urge scientists to consider other research methods. These methods include test-tube experiments on bacteria or on bits of human or animal tissue. Other alternatives include...computer models of living systems.” The fact that alternative methods of testing chemicals on human skin cells are in existence now should mean putting an end to animal testing. Animals are useless in this research, and testing chemicals on artificial human skin produces more relevant results. Also, “Arguments Against Animal Testing” from crueltyfreeinternational.org states that “An analysis of over 100 mouse cell types found that only 50% of the DNA responsible for regulating genes in mice could be matched with human DNA.” Based on this information, one must conclude that the results of tests run on animals are not always true for humans. Our DNA is vastly different from many animals’ DNA (except for monkeys), so animal tests are very unreliable for humans. Although, monkeys’ DNA is similar to ours. It is still inhumane to mistreat animals in any way. 

Furthermore, animal testing is cruel and violates animals’ rights. In “Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?” from ProCon.org, it states, “According to Humane Society International, animals used in experiments are commonly subjected to force feeding, forced inhalation, food and water deprivation, prolonged periods of physical restraint, the infliction of burns and other wounds to study the healing process, the infliction of pain to study its effects and remedies, and "killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.’...” All lives matter, no matter if it’s an animal life or a human life. Treating animals like this is cruel and barbaric. It is pointless to perform scientific tests on animals for the benefit of humans. Instead, scientists should conduct tests on willing human participants. In addition, ProCon.org states that “Since the majority of animals used in biomedical research are killed during or after the experiments, and since many suffer during the studies, the lives and wellbeing of animals are routinely sacrificed for poor research.” Animals are horribly mistreated when tests are run on them, and most of the time, the research that they are being used for is poor in quality. Their lives are being wasted, and for no evident or valid reason.

Finally, contrary to popular belief, results from tests run on animals are in fact conflicting and dangerous. For instance, crueltyfreeinternational.org states that “Human volunteers testing a new monoclonal antibody treatment (TGN1412) at Northwick Park Hospital, UK in 2006 suffered a severe allergic reaction and nearly died. Testing on monkeys at 500 times the dose given to the volunteers totally failed to predict the dangerous side effects.” This antibody, when tested on monkeys, predicted the exact opposite reaction humans would have to the same antibody. People almost had a fatal allergic reaction due to failed animal tests. Taken together, the fact that a drug that tested positively on a monkey, but almost killed many humans just goes to show you how much the immune system of a human is different from a monkey’s. Moreover, crueltyfreeinternational.org states that “Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested in monkeys (and five other animal species) but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks and strokes and 140,000 deaths worldwide.” Medicines that are tested on animals that have favorable results may have different effects on humans. Those effects could possibly be dangerous or lethal for humans. Certain animal DNA and human DNA are vastly different. So, for these reasons, animal testing is not only cruel, it is threatening and unreliable too.

Imagine the scene at the beginning again. The scientist strolls up to the medical table, but no chimpanzee is there. Instead, a piece of artificial human skin tissue lies there. The scientist plunges the syringe in, and obtains results geared towards humans rather than animals. The infant chimpanzee remains in Africa, with its own kind, and liberated from pointless research.

Works Cited
“Animal Testing - ProCon.org.” ProConorg Headlines, 2016 ProCon.org, 24 May 2016, animal-testing.procon.org/.
“Cruelty Free International.” Arguments against Animal Testing, Cruelty Free International, www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/arguments-against-animal-testing.
Flecknell, Paul. "Animal experimentation." World Book Student. World Book, 2016. Web. 12 Dec. 2016.