Imagine being subjected to pain without consent, and suffering for the sake of research that is of no benefit to you. This is the reality millions of animals endure each year when they are used as test subjects in cosmetic, medicine, scientific and other industries. Amongst the ongoing discourse around animal testing, which holds a variety of interesting viewpoints, a pressing question surfaces again and again: should it be banned? While some argue that it is essential for human progress, the ethical and scientific problems of animal testing cannot be ignored. Animal testing should be banned because it is cruel, causes unnecessary pain, produces unreliable results, and is economically inefficient—especially when there are effective alternative methods available.

Firstly, animal testing is cruel and causes unnecessary suffering. According to PETA, animals like mice, rabbits, and monkeys used in testing feel pain and fear. After enduring terrifying and painful procedures, such as when rats are chemically-induced seizures, and when primates’ skulls are cut open and having electrodes implanted in them, animals are often dumped back into cages without any painkillers (PETA). Video footage from inside testing laboratories show animals cowering in fear every time someone walks by their cages. They don't know if they will be dragged out for an injection, blood withdrawal, surgery, or even death. Often, they witness other animals being killed right in front of them (PETA).

Additionally, there are ethical problems associated with the suffering that animals endure. Many experiments involve harsh procedures, such as forcing animals to ingest toxic chemicals or exposing them to harmful substances like carcinogens or corrosives (Groff). In the U.S., it is legal to burn, shock, poison, isolate, starve, drown and induce drug addiction in animals if it is done for research purposes (Bartleby). Ethical principles, such as ‘avoiding harm’, are brazenly violated when animals suffer for human benefit (National Research Council [US] and Institute of Medicine [US]). From a rights perspective, a language barrier, so to speak, does not justify or dismiss the pain that animals suffer. Beyond ethical considerations, there is also the issue that animal testing is not always reliable. While humans are also animals, non-human animals and humans can have very different biologies, so results from animal tests often don't translate to humans. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), over 90% of drugs that pass animal tests fail in human trials. For example, HIV/AIDS vaccine research using non-human primates (NHPs) has not successfully translated to effective human treatments. Diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's, when artificially induced in non-human animals, do not fully replicate how these diseases manifest in humans (National Research Council [US] and Institute of Medicine [US]). This discrepancy leads to flawed research, as well as wasted time and resources. Relying on animal testing can delay medical progress and even put human lives at risk when drugs that appear safe in animals prove harmful in humans.

In addition to its unreliability, animal testing is also costly—there are more economically efficient alternatives. Testing on animals requires significant financial resources, from housing and caring for the animals to conducting the experiments themselves. A chromosome aberration test, for instance, costs around US$30,000, while an in vitro (lab-grown cell) test costs only US$20,000. Moreover, newer methods like lab-grown cell testing, computer simulations, and human cell-based research are not only more cost-effective but also more accurate (Cruelty Free International). Organizations like Humane Society International advocate for these methods because they are more humane and better suited to human biology. These alternatives can provide more reliable data without the ethical concerns associated with animal testing.

Some proponents of animal testing have suggested that it is necessary for medical progress and product safety (American Physiological Society). While it is true that animal testing has contributed to some medical breakthroughs, the majority of experiments have not led to significant advancements (NIH). Modern scientific methods, such as ‘organ-on-a-chip’ technology, which is “a micro-scale system used for mimicking the human body environment”,and advanced computational modelling that represent human heart cells can provide more accurate results . These methods model human biology directly, eliminate differences between species, and offer greater control and ethical flexibility (Peters; Adele). Additionally, more results can be acquired more ethically without harming animals. For example, 3D bioprinting, robotics, computer models and other cutting-edge technologies are far more sophisticated than animal testing, and can more accurately and effectively predict how people will respond to drugs, chemicals, and treatments by comparison (Humane World for Animals). These methods are more humane because they do not cause undue suffering,, and because they are more appropriately aligned with human health through direct correlation to human cells and systems.

In conclusion, banning animal testing is essential in ending the suffering of millions of animals, improving the accuracy of scientific research, and promoting more ethical and effective alternatives. If animal testing was banned, the world could transition to more humane research methods, freeing animals from the pain and fear they endure in laboratories, and scientists could focus on using and advancing technologies that better mimic human biology. This shift would lead to safer and more effective medicines and treatments. By embracing these changes, society can progress in a way that is both ethical and scientifically sound. It is time to leave animal testing behind and focus on a future that values care, innovation, and progress.

Works Cited

“40 Reasons Why We Need Animals in Research.” Understanding Animal Research, 2024,
www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/animal-research/using-animals-in-scientific-research/forty-reasons-why-we-need-animals-in-research.

American Physiological Society. “Why Do Scientists Use Animals in Research?” Animal Research, https://www.physiology.org/career/policy-advocacy/animal-research/Why-do-scientists-use-animals-in-research?SSO=Y. Accessed 30 May, 2025.

Cruelty Free International. “Alternatives to Animal Testing.” Cruelty Free International, 2023, www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/about-animal-testing/alternatives-animal-testing.

---. “Chemicals.” Cruelty Free International, 2023, www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/make-change/chemicals.

Groff, Katherine. “Review of Evidence of Environmental Impacts of Animal Research and Testing.” Environments, vol. 1, no. 1, 6 June 2014, pp. 14–30. MDPI,
https://doi.org/10.3390/environments1010014.

Humane Society International. “Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing.” Humane Society International, 23 Oct. 2012, www.hsi.org/news-resources/time_and_cost/.

Ingber, Donald. “Human Organs-On-Chips.” Wyss Institute, 1 Nov. 2018,
www.wyss.harvard.edu/technology/human-organs-on-chips/.

National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.  “Benefits Derived from the Use of Animals.” Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research, edited by Steve Olsen, National Academies Press (US), 1988. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218274/

Peters, Adele. “How Human ‘Organs on a Chip’ Can Help Replace Animal Testing.” Fast Company, 5 Aug. 2022, www.fastcompany.com/90775704/how-human-organs-on-a-chip-can-help-replace-animal-testing.