Abstract

Experimentation that uses non-human animals is justified by its defenders on the basis of the two-fold premise that: a) non-human animals make sufficient models of human biology and diseases, and b) non-human animals lack cognitive and emotional abilities that would require higher moral consideration. The irony with this defense is that experiments that use non-human animal subjects actually reveal how the opposite is in fact true. Medical experiments conducted on non-human animals reveal how similar they are to humans in their ability to suffer, while also proving that they are unreliable for studying human diseases and improving human health.