Firstly, animal studies can’t confirm or refute hypotheses about human physiology and pathology. The research done on humans is the only research which is relevant to humans. Animal testing cannot be trusted to have the same effects on humans as it does on animals. Therefore there is no need to unreasonably harm animals.
Animal testing is not the core of medical advancements in the world. While scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing as a reliable source of scientific testing. It’s sadistic that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits.
This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it". This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong.
“What is animal testing?” - One student.
“If you want to test cosmetics, why do it on some poor animal who hasn't done anything? They should use prisoners who have been convicted of murder or rape instead.” - Ellen DeGeneres
There a huge amount of alternatives to animal testing but the main reason why the alternatives to animal testing are not being used is that they are impractical or a lot more expensive than animal testing. This places the dignity of animal life far below its actual value which is unfair and inhumane. Alternate techniques include:
a) Testing human cell cultures
b) Using computer models
c) Studying human volunteers
“Animal testing is unethical and unreasonable. It has led to scientific breakthroughs but a large amount of the time they are slaughtered for no reason.” - Another student.
