New ProCon.org Website: Should Animals Be Used for Scientific or Commercial Testing?

Last updated on: | Author: ProCon.org | MORE HEADLINES
Cite this page using APA, MLA, Chicago, and Turabian style guides

An estimated 26 million animals, including cats, rats, dogs, mice and marmosets, are used every year in the United States for scientific and commercial testing. ProCon.org debuts its 49th issue website, https://animal-testing.procon.org, and delves deeply into the pros and cons of animal testing using the latest studies, perspectives, and facts. 
Proponents of animal testing say that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories.
Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to experiment on animals, that alternative methods available to researchers can replace animal testing, and that animals are so different from human beings that research on animals often yields irrelevant results.
In response to the website’s core question, “Should animals be used for scientific or commercial testing?,” ProCon.org presents sourced pros and cons, a historical background section, videos, images, over 100 footnotes and sources, and Did You Know? facts including (sources available online):
* 95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish.
* A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% “agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.”
* Chimpanzees share 99% of their DNA with humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to humans. The United States and Gabon are the only two countries that allow experimentation on chimpanzees.
“We tackled this classic debate because our readers asked us to, because it affects many people and animals, and frankly because many existing sources have a stake in the discussion,” explains ProCon.org President & Managing Editor Kamy Akhavan. “We have no stake in the issue other than to stimulate critical thinking by presenting the best arguments on both sides.”
For pros, cons, and related research on animal testing, visit https://animal-testing.procon.org