Almost all of the time when you are about to buy a product, you look at the information such as the ingredients and whether or not it's safe. Most of the time, you’d might see on the back of the product that it may have been tested on animals. In your daily life, you may not always think about how much animals have gone through to make the product available for you. Because of the harm animals have been put into, I believe that animals should not be used as test subjects, due to the fact that animals have feelings, alternative methods for testing a product exist, and animals have wide physical differences making them poor test subjects.

One reason why animals shouldn't be test subjects is because animals have been known to have both emotional and physical feelings, just that they don't have a human voice to show their consent if they would. “The Draize eye test, used by cosmetic companies to evaluate irritation caused by shampoos and other products, involving rabbits being incapitated in stocks with their eyelids held open with clips, sometimes for multiple days so they cannot blink away from products being used(“Science News, Articles, and Information”.) Just like in human nature, it's important for all animals with eyelids to be able to blink so being forced to have their eyelids open will put living creatures in discomfort. Nobody wants to be in situations like that so why put another living being in it? “Organizations like the HSI have known that animals don't think like humans so testing subjects are forced to cooperate with scientists applying chemicals into the animal and even have to go through internal and external wounds for the scientists to observe.” Unless someone is lacking sympathy for others, the signs of animals having emotions are far more than just obvious, especially to people with pets and seeing a pet that doesn’t consent to testing being put under risk for humans would be heartbreaking. “Reports have been told that thousands of animals have been under harsh substances and because any kind of experiment will never completely follow as predicted, a majority of these animals went through serious pain and not be given anesthesia for relief.” The fact that most animals don't receive anesthesia would make us double check on how inconsiderate humans can be. It's about time we start being sympathetic for animals...all animals including bugs.

Second, there are different ways to test substances without animals. “Using the study of cells, it is possible to use Vitrotesting (where human cells are used) for more accurate results because most everyday products are for humans.” Most substances that are tested are for humans so it does sound smarter to use human cells than put an animal to risk. “Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results(“Recruitment Within Pharmaceutical Jobs, Medical Jobs, Scientific Jobs, Tech PR Jobs”.) Most, or not, some that have used these commercially available have agreed that they work, rather than products that have been tested on animals. “Computer models can be used to predict how toxic a substance will be without risking a life of an animal.” Over hundreds of years, computer technology has been modernizing and we can find more uses for computers so everyday products can be improved. Most of these products are for humans and not animals so animals are most likely not going to respond to products like humans do. 

Also,  animals are physically different different from humans just as much as they are emotionally the same. “Paul Furlong, professor of CNAU at Aston University states that ‘It's very hard to create an animal model than even equates closely to what we’re trying to achieve in the human(“Humane Society International : Humane Society International”.)  Animals also have different instincts and reaction to things that humans may not be able to contain in their DNA, which can be especially found in their body parts. “Anybody would agree that humans are far distinct from rats and alternatives for animal testing is more acceptable because everyday products aren't usually for benefiting rats.” Humans are more capable of trying to understand what would happen to them, their location, Etc. than animals. When they get captured for testing, all they know what to do is escape. “Simple studies can show that animals have many physical differences (in metabolism and cellular systems) and react differently to occurrences from humans, therefore making animals poor test subjects.” For example, a substance applied on a human won't cause major reactions, but when it's applied on an animal, it could cause severe irritation and wounds. Testing anything is most likely to cause uncertainty and nobody completely knows what can happen, rather it's a small reaction or a widespread epidemic.

However, some argue that animal testing does have positive properties. “Animal testing has been proven to save lives of people and make through.” True, it did save some lives but saving human lives isn't going to bring back all the hundred thousands of animals that died in laboratories from the dead. “Animals are common to humans in many ways such as the set of organs.” Animals are similar by physical properties but when testing anything, nobody can completely accurately predict on how organisms would react to substances. “Animals don't have the same rights to humans.” ...Ok...just because animals can't speak or act human does NOT mean they'll always consent to harmful products. Animals have been but on this Earth with emotional capabilities like humans for a reason. If we don't want our pets to die, why allow lives of other animals be put to danger just for the sake of humans?

In conclusion, because so many animals have been treated with inferiority to humans, animals should not be slaved to chemicals and other products when it's only humans that will only be using it. We already have what keeps updating to have more useful purposes: technology. Soon with technology, there will be a way to test products for the benefit of all living creatures, big and small.

Works Cited

Scientific American, "Do Cosmetic Companies Still Test on Live Animals?," scientificamerican.com (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
Humane Society International, "About Animal Testing," hsi.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), "Annual Report Animal Usage by Fiscal Year: 2010," aphis.usda.gov, July 27, 2011

Kara Rogers, "Scientific Alternatives to Animal Testing: A Progress Report," britannica.com, Sep. 17, 2007
Axonn News Agency, "Greiner Bio-One Launches Artificial Skin to Replace Animal Testing," zenopa.com, July 15, 2013
Alternatives to Animal Experimentation," BMJ, Jan. 27, 2007

Humane Society International, "As Home Office Statistics Show UK Animal Experiments At Shocking 4.11Million, HSI Calls on Government to Increase Spend on Non-Animal Replacement Techniques," hsi.org, July 16, 2013
Jeffrey M. Perkel, "Life Science Technologies: Animal-Free Toxicology: Sometimes, in Vitro is Better," sciencemag.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)
New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), "Biomedical Research," neavs.org (accessed Oct. 15, 2013)