When it comes to animal testing, there is a definite resolution to the controversy. It is hard to take into account all variables necessary for making a decision. On the one hand, I agree with the view that modern technologies allow us to test products without the involvement of animals, and some of such technologies may be more cost-effective. Examples of this include growing human tissue from donated cells, computer modeling, research with human volunteers, “organs-on-chips,” and other fascinating solutions that eliminate the need to use animals to test products. It is humans who use products, and therefore they should be the ones involved in testing if necessary.
On the other hand, some governments (e.g., China) refuse to abandon animal testing. Some people see the value of human life as higher than that of animals. After all, animals have served as integral components of vaccines’ discoveries, the creation of pacemakers, treatment for premature babies, and so on. The utilitarian perspective will also lean to the side of animal research because the benefits for humankind are higher than the negative implications for animals. However, given the devastation of nature to which humans have contributed, eliminating the need for animal testing is the least that we can do from an ethical perspective.