The relationship between humans and animals is an eternal topic. In ancient times, humans hunted animals for survival, not only for their flesh to eat but also for their fur to resist the freezing environment. Furthermore, in the process of civilization, people get inspired by animals and invent new things that totally changes human’s life. The contribution that animals make to human’s development of technology is tremendous and undeniable. However, when animals as experimental subjects suffer from product testing, people start to think whether it conforms to morality. Some people advocate an end to using animals for testing products but using alternatives to replace animal testing. On the other hand, some people argue that animal …show more content…
For example, Gina Solomon, who is a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, argues that "But the alternatives ---continued ignorance or human testing ---are unacceptable. There is simply no non-animal alternative for tests searching for birth defects, neurological impairment, and reproductive problems. Even where non- animal tests exist, it is often impossible to extrapolate the results to humans. Animal testing should be minimized or eliminated when scientifically appropriate […]" (49). In a word, the complexity and uniqueness of the human biology determine the high difficulty of replacing animal experimentation. From an ethic aspect, the purpose of using animals to ensure the safety of products is about saving human lives. When the scientific alternatives couldn’t work as well as the animal testing to ensure human health, which results in a tragedy that caused a plenty of people die, it contradicts the concept of morality and humanity. When reducing animal testing protects animals but harms human lives seriously, it definitely against ethic, which totally contradicts the “morality” that opponents advocate. For instance, Partners in Research points out that “The thalidomide tragedy, in which a drug prescribed to combat nausea in pregnant women caused birth defects in 10,000 European babies, was largely avoided in North America because federal health and drug agencies believed thalidomide had not been adequately tested on animals”(PIR). It shows that animal experimentation is necessary to ensure product safety, especially when the alternatives are limited. Even though animal testing may cause animals die, their sacrifices are warranted to protect human lives, which is worth it. Reducing animal testing in an acceptable