Animal Testing: End the Hypocrisy | Teen Ink

Animal Testing: End the Hypocrisy

January 10, 2008
By Anonymous

What is animal testing? Every year 115,000,000 animals around the world are experimented on. 115,000,000. Think about that. How would you feel if the United States government took your pet for animal testing experiments?

Safety tests are conducted on these millions of innocent specimens concerning a wide range of chemicals and products, including vaccines, drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, and a wide multitude of other deleterious substances.

Why use animals for testing? The common answer is “because they are like us”. Ask experimenters why it isn’t morally heterodox, and the common answer is “because they (animals) aren’t like us”.
“Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction” – Professor Charles R. Magel

This phantasmagoria of inhumane acts – pumping chemicals into rats’ stomachs, putting baby monkeys into isolation chambers, hacking muscle tissue from dogs – is paid for by the taxpayer. It’s true, but as a consumer, you can’t visit a laboratory and see these breaches of animal rights for yourself.

In the United States, animal testing is primarily regulated by the 1966 Animal Welfare Act, which is enforced by the United States Department of Agriculture. The AWA has been amended five times since 1966, most recently in 2002. Thinking these organizations help to control factors in experimentation, therefore making our country’s animals safer? Think again. If these organizations can control the premises in which animal rights are oppressed, could they not put a stop to animal testing?

Currently, the only products that are federally mandated to be tested on animals are those that serve medicinal purposes. Yet thousands of other products are still being put to the test at the expense of animals. Compassionate organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States are working to put a stop to these dolorous acts, and validate non-animal methods of testing.

What are these non-animal methods of testing? Names of these alternative methods include: Eytex, a test-tube procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration system; Skintex, another in-vitro method that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the reaction of a foreign substance on human skin; Epipac, which uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances; Neutral Red Bioassay, cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of a water-soluble substance to measure relative toxicity; Testskin, uses human skin grown in a sterile plastic bag to measure irritancy; TOPKAT, a computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and teratonogenicity; Ames Test, mixes a test culture with Salmonella typhimurium and adds activating enzymes to test for carcinogenity; and the Agarose Diffusion Method. For more information concerning these altruistic methods, visit

In 2004, the National Institutes of Health provided funds to 3,180 different research universities and institutions for use in the animal testing industry.

Thought that the U.S. government was erroneous? Why don’t you hear Britain’s stand on animal testing. The House of Lords states that, “The institution of morality, society, and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique among animals…and are therefore morally entitled to use them for their own purposes.” The types of institutions conducting animal research in the U.K. were: universities (42.1%); commercial organizations (33.3%); non-profit organizations (4.9%); government departments (2.4%); National Health Service hospitals (0.9%); public health laboratories (0.6%); and other public bodies (15.8%).

According to the USDA, in Britain, in 2002, there were 1,137,718 animals tested on. Not including birds, rats, and mice, which make up about 85% of research animals.

“To my mind the life of the lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.” – Mohandas K. Gandhi

Something to think about…countervail animal testing today. Give animals their rights back.

For a listing of companies that test on animals, visit

For more ways to oppose animal cruelty, visit and

Similar Articles


This article has 16 comments.

Sparaxis GOLD said...
on Nov. 2 2016 at 8:27 am
Sparaxis GOLD, Saint Marys, Georgia
13 articles 1 photo 307 comments

Favorite Quote:
"If you keep on picking on me, I'll mess up again. This time, on PURPOSE."

There's something even worse done to animals than using experimental medicine...

your mom said...
on Oct. 27 2011 at 8:25 am

well...ur a selfish jerk arent u?


Vanndamann said...
on Oct. 26 2011 at 8:18 am
well...survival of the fittest i supose...

on Mar. 4 2011 at 1:25 am
johnny95 BRONZE, Sunnyside, Washington
1 article 17 photos 15 comments

Favorite Quote:
An eyefor eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
M.K. Gandhi

i wish there were more people like you things would be alot more different around hear

on May. 5 2010 at 3:18 am

i´m spanish and tomorrow i will go to doñana to kill soma linxs to make a sofa


on Feb. 28 2010 at 3:06 pm
LoveOfWords BRONZE, Ascot, Other
4 articles 3 photos 48 comments

Favorite Quote:
I reject your reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage

BTW, while I do disagree with you, your article was well written and I respect your opinion. Well done!

on Feb. 28 2010 at 3:04 pm
LoveOfWords BRONZE, Ascot, Other
4 articles 3 photos 48 comments

Favorite Quote:
I reject your reality and substitute my own! -- Adam Savage

While animal testing is a horrible, horrible thing, it's for a good reason. Would you rather a potentially life-saving drug be developed on a loved one or a few rats?

Animal testing isn't unregulated; it's not like the scientists can just torture the animals for grins. There are regulations.

It's not a pleasant thing, but it wouldn't be allowed if it weren't for a good reason.

goldrush77 said...
on Sep. 10 2009 at 12:54 pm
thats stupid animal testers are cool. i wanna be one too. my email is my name is james parson

lillgirl said...
on Sep. 5 2008 at 1:52 am
i don't like these animal testing things with all the percents and facts...

akinne said...
on Sep. 2 2008 at 8:11 pm
Your article blew me away. Keep standing up for what you believe in because no one else will do it for you.

GoAskAlice said...
on Aug. 29 2008 at 5:40 am
I think it could have been a little better organized. There should have been a thesis statement, and the paragraphing organization could have been a little clearer. Also, I'm surprised that you didn't mention stem cell research. Other than that, good job! There was a lot of information packed into a small space! Thanks for the good read!

jenny said...
on Aug. 22 2008 at 7:01 pm
Very interesting! I found this informative and entertaining.

Placido said...
on Aug. 22 2008 at 10:49 am
Great article! Author demonstrates good knowledge of subject matter and addresses a serious matter in a non-lugubrious manner

Hot Boat said...
on Aug. 22 2008 at 3:20 am
Extemely well written. She made her case for limiting animal testing very strongly. I only disagree with one point: The PETA position that animals have rights. While they DO NOT have rights, humans have a responsibility to protect those that can't protect themselves. I think her young idealism will be tempered as she grows and matures and gins more life experience. Still, a well engineered read.

Paigelee said...
on Aug. 22 2008 at 1:30 am
I saw you on peta, and looked here at the link you posted. Great writing skills girl!

psummer said...
on Aug. 21 2008 at 10:26 pm
This article is very well written and it addresses a very important issue that more people need to be aware of.

GREAT JOB!!!! : )