Home > Challenges > Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons
Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons
By: Ian Murnaghan BSc (hons), MSc - Updated: 28 Nov 2025|*Discuss
Animal testing has long been a subject of debate, with both advantages and disadvantages. Neither side offers a definitive solution that satisfies the public, governments, or the scientific community.
Pros or Positives of Animal Testing
1. Helps researchers discover drugs and treatments: Animal testing has played a crucial role in the development of many life-saving medicines and therapies. Treatments for conditions such as cancer, HIV, diabetes (insulin), infections (antibiotics), and numerous vaccines were all advanced through research involving animals.
2. Improves human health: This is why many scientists and members of the public continue to support its use—particularly in medicine. While some strongly oppose testing for cosmetics, many still agree that it is necessary for creating new treatments for serious illnesses.
3. Helps ensure the safety of drugs: Animal testing provides an early safeguard before human trials begin. Because some drugs can cause severe harm, testing on animals first reduces risks and saves human lives. In addition, medicines proven safe through these tests often go on to extend and improve quality of life.
4. Alternatives cannot yet fully replicate human biology: Although new testing technologies are emerging, they do not yet simulate the complexity of the human body. Animals are still considered the closest match, offering researchers valuable insights that alternative methods cannot currently replace.
Cons or Negatives of Animal Testing
1. Animals are killed or kept in captivity: Millions of animals are used in experiments each year. Many are euthanised afterwards, while others spend the rest of their lives in captivity or suffer long-term harm.
2. Some testing produces no practical benefit: A significant number of substances tested never reach approval or public use. Critics argue this means animals may suffer or die without any direct benefit to humans, making the process seem wasteful and ethically questionable.
3. It is very expensive: Animal testing is costly. Beyond buying animals, expenses include food, housing, care, and repeated experiments that may run for months or even years. Entire industries exist to breed animals specifically for research, which adds to the financial burden.
4. Animal results are not always reliable for humans: Animal biology is not identical to human biology. Drugs may act differently in humans than in animals, raising concerns about reliability. Stress and unnatural lab conditions may also affect animal responses, weakening the accuracy of results.
Personal Choice
Although there are strong arguments on both sides, the ethical dimension often overshadows practical considerations. For many people, personal values and emotions ultimately determine whether they believe the benefits justify the harm caused by animal testing.
Legislation & Regulation
Several laws, directives, and conventions regulate how and when animal testing can be done, with the aim of limiting harm, improving welfare, and encouraging alternatives:
• European Union – Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes: This is the principal EU law on animal research. It mandates high standards of welfare, requires justification of animal use, and enshrines the principle of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). It also extended protections to foetal forms of mammals (in the last third of development) and to cephalopods. Member States must report annually on numbers of animals used and the severity of procedures. In addition, the EU has banned animal testing for cosmetics: testing of finished cosmetic products has been banned since 2004, and testing of cosmetic ingredients since 2009, with a marketing ban on cosmetics tested on animals since 2013.
• Council of Europe – European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals: Adopted in 1986, this convention (often called the “animal experimentation convention”) sets standards for the humane use of vertebrates in scientific research. It influenced later EU legislation.
• United States – Animal Welfare Act (AWA): The AWA is the main federal statute regulating the treatment of animals in research, testing, and exhibition in the U.S. It sets minimum standards for housing, feeding, veterinary care, handling, transport and oversight by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). However, certain animals commonly used in research—such as rats and mice bred for research—are excluded under the AWA. Facilities that violate the AWA may incur fines or lose licenses.
• Emerging legislation: In the EU, the European Commission has launched a “Roadmap Towards Phasing Out Animal Testing” in chemical assessments. In the U.S., bills such as the KITTEN Act and the AFTER Act seek to further limit harmful practices and ensure adoption of lab animals after experiments.
For more information about the ethics of animal testing on this site, read the following features:
While some animal testing is not ok you also have to look at the bright side of this. Because of animal testing, many lives have been saved from diseases. Not just people but other animals too. While it is cruel and we need to search for other ways, we can't just deny the things animal testing has done for us. But anyway thank you for this article this really helped me with my assignment.
Mackaylah Waibel - 23-Mar @ 12:37 AM
Who says animals don't have feelings too? Rats are known to show exhibit signs of altruism; putting themselves in harm's way rather than allowing another being to suffer. Infant Rats giggle when they are tickled. They become emotionally attached to each other, love their families, and easily bond with human guardians. Because mice and rats are not protected by the law, experimenters don’t even have to provide them with pain relief. Researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries were given post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time. In my eyes, it is NOT humane to torture willing to love and innocent animals just for the sake of finding some "cure" in any animal.
TeaSiS - 4-Mar @ 5:15 AM
I think animal testing is wrong and people should find a better way to test cures and substances. It is’nt fair to animals they didn’t choose to be tested on. How would you feel if someone locked you in a cage and did some crazy experiments on you. I sure wouldn’t like it. I agree it could help solve cures and deaths but I think that things happen for a reason, and that their is probably a better way to get through cancer and other deseases. But people can’t take it out on animals. Animals have the right to life just like we do.
Chelsey - 29-Jan @ 6:55 PM
Animal testing can help save lives, but it can also be unreliable. Animals and people are not the same and only 19% of the 93 dangerous drug side effects can be predicted by animal tests. Animals are not above us but we are also not above them and they shouldn't unnecessarily (which it is in some cases) suffer when we wouldn't do the same for them. However, if animal testing could save a person I love then I can see why people agree with it but it is controversial.
jazzyjessw - 4-Aug @ 7:19 PM
This is actually really useful for my debate coming up!
Student - 18-May @ 12:21 AM
Ok, so, people have to stop thinking morally, because if the phrase "We shouldn't mess with animals because we don't have any right to play with their lives" was true, then humans would have to be vegans, wear no animal fur or leather, and keep no pets. Scientifically, animals can have different reactions to medicines than humans because of thatone percent of different DNA. I do want to stop animal testing, but it's never going to happen if people do not think logically. #devilsadvocate.
ThinkAboutIt - 13-Dec @ 11:18 PM
I really think the animals should be saved because they have lives too, and we can't keep treating them as not human beings. They have feelings of pain,hurt, and joy just like us humans.
Ce-Ce - 13-Jul @ 2:38 PM
Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal experimentation wastes lives—both animal and human—and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are common statements supporting animal experimentation followed by the arguments against them.
“Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals.”
This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most experiments on animals are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances, and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that these experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities, and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential they have to lead to new cures and the role they’ve played in past medical advances.
Trayyyyyyyys boi - 9-Mar @ 5:19 PM
It's wrong, animals don't have the same body types as us. Why let this continue? No matter what kind of testing, its wrong. Something they could respond good to, may be bad for us.
Simza - 16-Feb @ 1:52 PM
Yes we should keep doing genetic testing on animals
It has not only helped humans but animals to
- longer life span
- better health care
- Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species
7 out of 10 most recent noble prizes in medicine were based on animal research
Animals and humans have very similar DNA
awesomeness - 8-Feb @ 8:27 PM
You guys need to realize that animal testing it itself is bad, but in some places it's needed. I think it's stupid that they test cosmetics on animals, because those aren't very important. However, when it comes to life saving drugs, I may not like it, but sometimes it's needed. I have however heard that there are alternatives to animal testing. But I will agree with using them for medical drugs and treatments, but I disagree with overdoing it (like using WAY too many animals for one drug).
Billy - 7-Jan @ 11:32 PM
Animal testing is needed. You know all those shots and vaccines you got? Most came from testing on pigs. It's a necessary evil that we have to keep going. Would you rather test on humans? Plus if anything animals will die no matter what, why not let them die in a controlled environment and let it benefit us
Duhvid - 7-Jan @ 3:15 PM
I support the 3 Rs.
Replacement- conducting non-animal experiments instead.
Reduction- restricting the number of animals used in one particular study to what is absolutely needed.
Refinement-minimizing the pain and suffering the animals is subjected to.
In many cases, alternatives (more effective and less costly) are available.However, not for everything.The number of tests that"passed" the animal stage, but almost killed humans is ridiculous.As well as the number of test that the animals "failed" but proved to be beneficial to humans....
TiffanyNatasha - 23-Dec @ 11:37 AM
Animal testing is bad, but it is a necessary evil.
arrrrrrrrr - 4-Dec @ 4:51 PM
I think animal testing for medical reasons is okay, but animal testing for other stuff is NOT OKAY.
qwerty - 7-Nov @ 11:51 PM
I love animals so please don't killed animals by trying to test them. If you testing them, you killed yourself. Because you don't have any food from animals like pigs,... No More Animals Testing, PLEASE !!!!
Chubby - 6-Nov @ 12:08 PM
Animal testing is cruel. Why don't people just use the alternative method?
elkrapsykS# lenahC - 1-Nov @ 3:46 PM
I am against animal testing because it is one of the cruelest things in the world to do to an animal. NO ANIMAL TESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mimi - 31-Oct @ 6:35 PM
I really think that scientists who use animal for testing are crazy.(not to offend anyone in person)
Animals are a living creature just like us and the should be treated the same way.If scientists want to do testing they can just do it on a dead animal.I say this because I am a lover of animals I am against animal testing
Krissy - 31-Oct @ 6:29 PM
testing things on human cells in a dish could be useful, but in the case of penicillin, for example, it wasn't proven effective until it was actually in the systems.Sulfanomides aren't useful of themselves, but the immune system alters them to be useful.Hope these examples help
peanut,jerry - 22-Oct @ 6:59 PM
people should not test animals for many different purposes!
westy - 29-Aug @ 12:40 AM
I am a 30 year internet researcher and 53 user, vitamins,supplements.
There are over a 100 million americans who do the same. Billions of dollars are wasted on research that prove nothing and profit only the drug and medical industry.
Our use of dietary and supplement regimens avoiding toxic foods and drugs,
we, as a group, have few health problems.Researching and documenting our health and dietary history is the best possible guide to the health of all Americans.
If you want real health, interview the people who are.
…dez... - 8-Jul @ 9:15 PM
Why is the pursuit of knowledge and the exploration of nature never listed as a pro?
The vast majority of scientific animal researchers are doing so simply to unravel the mysteries of nature. They are driven by the awe and wonder of life in all its forms. These let us tell the stories of the world and how it came to be.
As long as animals are kept and treated to the highest standards then exploring nature is justification enough.
B - 17-Jun @ 4:39 PM
I need to know how would i use animal testing in my critical thinking English 3 class as a topic, thank you its for my final project
jr - 9-Jun @ 4:07 AM
i agree because my wife died two years ago and she died because her makeup was not safe. it was and i quote, animal testing free.
dr.smart - 19-May @ 7:51 PM
guess what. animal testing has its benefits you just cant see past your noses and cant help but try to judge anyone for animal testing. well guess what? are YOU vegan? i am and i still believe animals are here fora reason and in the end the animals always end up coming to use for us. meat, clothes, makeup, and the list continues. sooo..... before yall start to preach about animal rights, who would you rather see die? - a 5 yr old or a rat?
sally - 19-May @ 7:47 PM
Thank you so much this has helped me so much with my assignment and class work. the only thing i think you could work on is more information. I got an A+ thanks to you again thank you
Tris - 13-May @ 8:37 AM
this website is great it has helped with mys class work a lot and strengthen my opinion on why animal testing is bad and inhuman and cruel.
the boss - 30-Apr @ 6:40 PM
@youhelpedmeonaresearYes, testing things on human cells in a dish could be useful, but in the case of penicillin, for example, it wasn't proven effective until it was actually in the systems.Sulfanomides aren't useful of themselves, but the immune system alters them to be useful.Hope these examples help
Jimmy Re: Food Production and Animal Testing
You would have to grow the food yourself and not use pesticides. Industrially farmed veg is sprayed with pesticides which…
Lizard Re: Who Performs Animal Testing?
Animal Testing and Experimenting is most Barbaric. 96% of all the results fail, and can't be used on Humans. A hundred and fifteen…
Dr. Spencer Reid Re: What Happens to Animals After Testing?
In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests,…
Das Re: Who Performs Animal Testing?
In regards to animal testing by the MoD medical equipment mainly field dressings and celox gauze is tested on live animals that…
Kate Re: Animal Testing in the United States
I have degrees in chemistry and physics and have done cancer research before in the U.S. but stopped because drugs…
Re: Food Production and Animal Testing
You would have to grow the food yourself and not use pesticides. Industrially farmed veg is sprayed with pesticides which…
Re: Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons
Do they animal test on chimpanzees cause DNA?
Re: Who Performs Animal Testing?
Animal Testing and Experimenting is most Barbaric. 96% of all the results fail, and can't be used on Humans. A hundred and fifteen…
Re: Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons
While some animal testing is not ok you also have to look at the bright side of this. Because of animal…
Re: Biomedical Research and Animal Testing
Animals don’t have much of a life than humans they also have a shorter time span than humans
Re: What Happens to Animals After Testing?
In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests,…
Re: What Happens to Animals After Testing?
I entirely disagree with all animal experiments. They are archaic and hideously cruel. They cannot express pain like…
Re: Who Performs Animal Testing?
In regards to animal testing by the MoD medical equipment mainly field dressings and celox gauze is tested on live animals that…
Re: What Happens to Animals After Testing?
Is animal testing inhumane and cruel? Of course. But for example, let's say that someone has diabetes and the only…
Re: Animal Testing in the United States
I have degrees in chemistry and physics and have done cancer research before in the U.S. but stopped because drugs…