The Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing

"Great achievement is usually born of great sacrifice and is never the result of selfishness.."
__Napoleon Hill"

---

Scientific research particularly drug trials are different from other kinds of research in the sense that most times, it involves pretesting whatever you've developed to evaluate safety and efficacy before being approved for human consumption.

No one's got a spare life to take gamble with and this is why even terminally ill patients are often reluctant to sign a consent form for him to be used as a test sample for a newly developed drug (experimental drugs), even when there might be a 40% chance the drug could help them. That speaks volume of how people cherish their lives.

On the other hand, there should be a way to pretest these drugs, What would they be?

---

In the quest to answer this pertinent question, scientists discovered that guinea pigs and rats have got the biological systems that's similar to that of humans... Doesn't it become a better substitute other than testing drugs in humans directly especially considering the uncertainty of the efficacy in mind?

This realization brought animal testing into the spotlight and has always been a topic of ethical deliberation.

---

Some persons argue that there is no justification in killing animals for the good of humans whereas some are of the opinion that unless a better alternative is gotten, it remains the most logical thing to do.

Personally, I find myself sitting on the fence when it comes to this topic. On one hand, it would really be a dangerous move to release these new drugs without pretesting them, given the uncertainty of their effects. On the other hand, when I come to think of the big number of animals that are sacrificed for these to come through, I'm left overwhelmed battling the question of if the end truly justifies the means.

---

In the end, I think the "Great Sacrifice" Napoleon Hill was referring to in this context becomes these animals, however, when better alternatives are developed, I would love scientists to quickly consider that because of course, animals have got their own lives to live and it matters.

It is a question of balance between animal suffering and human benefit. Animals feel pain too, they've got families and social bonds, yet in laboratories, they are seen as mere tools of actualising human's insatiable needs of survival.

---

That notwithstanding, until alternatives are found, I would love it when the ethical guidelines are followed to the core ensuring there is always a valid reason to use animals for testing before they are used and also ensuring the smallest numbers are used without of course, compromising the research efficacy because yes! That seems like the only logical compromise we've got.

Animal testing is often said to be inevitable in human progress and partly that's true because a lot of vaccines have been made possible via this way, however, scientists should know that true advancement lies in finding solutions that benefits humanity without inflicting suffering in others, including animals because when we keep seeing this as norm, time will come when more extreme practices such as testing human babies night be considered acceptable.

---

Wrapping up, while animal testing may seem like our only viable option at present, it is neither fair nor ideal. Scientists should double up their effort in finding alternatives and constantly ask themselves; Does our pursuit of progress come at such a high moral cost? A future where science and compassion coexists will be the true height of scientific research and human achievement.

This is my response to the #hivelearners community contest on the topic titled, for the sake of science

Images were generated using Meta AI