Vivo testing has become one of the most heated issues. There are two contradictory views to this subject. Many individuals bitterly oppose to animal testing because it is ethically unacceptable while others consider it as an effective method to check product's safety, especially medications safety. Both views will be analyzed before a reasoned conclusion is drawn in this essay.
Initially, vivo testing opponents claim that it is extremely inhumane to conduct experiments on animals such as dogs, cats, mice, rabbits,… They have sensations, even feelings as well, which proves that they are able to sense hurt. According to an article, every year approximately 20 thousand animals died during medications tests. Secondly, nowadays, people tend to be against animal cruelty. Therefore, animal experiments will adversely decrease the company's image, Last but not least, testing on animals is contradictory to what we teach our younger generations. We teach them love for animals, equality while vivo testing makes us get used to sacrificing inferior beings to get benefits, which is rather uneducated.
However, proponents of vivo testing hold a strong belief that it is the most affordable method to make sure medicine or cosmetic is cleared before people's use. Dogs, cats, birds, mice are cheap and they generate fast, so we don't have to worry about extinction and harm to biological diversity. Moreover, testing on animals save a lot of time compared to conducting on grown in lap cells because it takes averagely 3-4 days to have a qualified number of cells to make experiments.
In conclusion, it is more reasonable to impose a prohibition on animal testing. I strongly detest experiments on animal for its inhumane characteristic.