By using animals in research, and through animal research science learns how certain chemicals "interact with living systems"; this knowledge can be "translated into protection of humans, animals, and the environment from toxic levels of natural -- as well as man-made -- exposures (SOT, 6).
Legal and professional accountability
In Canada there are Research Ethics Boards (REBs) that have the power to authorize or reject funding for experiments with animals; when animal research proposals do not meet with proper ethical requirements, the REBs can put a halt to the experiments (Tremayne-Lloyd, et al., 2007, p. 56-57). The law in Canada -- which should be imitated in other countries that do not now have laws protecting animals -- allows that an overseeing regulatory agencies like the College of Chiropractors of Ontario (CCO) can "reprimand members and/or suspend or revoke licenses to practice" (Tremayne-Lloyd, 57). Cruelty to animals, assault on animals, or "criminal negligence" can lead to legal ramifications for the organizations conducting research using animals. An "assault" is committed when there has been no legal authorization by an REB and "force is intentionally applied" to an animal (Tremayne-Lloyd, 59). Moreover, section 446 of the Criminal Code in Canada makes it a criminal act to willfully cause "…any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal including that which results from a failure to exercise reasonable care" (Tremayne, Lloyd, 59).
In conclusion, there clearly have been many benefits for humans because animals are used in laboratory tests, but on the other hand there are instances that have been verified where animals are brutally mistreated for purposes that are not at all obvious. Regulating the use of animals, like it is done in Canada, is the best idea, short of finding alternatives to the use of animals in important research.
Works… [Read More]
Negatives of Animal Testing Outweigh Its Positives and Therefore Should Not be Allowed
Many cures and treatments have been developed in the last three hundred years due to advances in medical technology. These developments are sometimes attributed partly to the fact that scientists and researchers have been able to use animals as "guinea pigs" for testing new medications or treatment methods before passing them to human volunteers. There is strong evidence supporting this claim though technology today allows scientists to bypass animal testing in many cases. Moreover, animal testing has led to many horrible abuses and misleading results due to the fact that animals' organism does not match the complexity of human bodies. Ultimately, when the benefits and harms of using animals for testing purposes, it is evident that animals should not be used for experiments. In this paper, I will present both sides of the argument and then explain why I believe animals should not be used in research and experimental testing.
Having admitted that "I have all my life been a strong advocate for humanity to animals," Charles Darwin once stated, "I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means of experiments on living animal, and I feel the deepest conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology commits a crime against mankind" (qtd. In Taylor 164). This is the crux of the argument by those who justify the use of animals for testing and research experiments. They argue that they do not want animals to suffer and that they would like to eliminate animal testing if possible. But in the absence of viable alternatives and for the purpose of advancing medical science that helps scientists develop pain relievers and life-saving drugs, it is necessary to continue animal testing. They argue that stopping animal testing will make it much harder for scientists to develop effective drugs that can reduce pain, alleviate illnesses, and save lives.
Supporters of animal testing ground their justification based on the belief that "humans are sufficiently superior to animals to the extent that the death of an animal from developing a new…… [Read More]
Animal Testing: Cosmetics and Toiletries
Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in a variety of experiments (Wikipedia, 2005)
Many experiments aim to test certain substances to determine their effect on humans, or to test medical or psychological hypotheses. Animal testing is a very controversial and well-researched topic. Proponents and opponents constantly argue over both ethical concerns and the effectiveness of the practice of using animals for scientific research.
The term "vivisection" is now used as a blanket term for all animal experiments, although it originally only referred to those that involved cutting the animals (Wikipedia, 2005)
Many dictionaries and encyclopedias now use the term "vivisection" to describe any type of animal experiment that causes suffering, whether it involves cutting or not, although those animal experimentors dislike this trend as they feel that "vivisection" is a term that spurs emotion (Croce, 1991).
For many years, people have debated on the topic of animal testing and the moral implications involved with this procedure (Wikipedia, 2005). Some argue that the perceived benefits to humans is outweighed by the moral issues. Research advocates in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries argue that humans in some parts of the world maintain a better standard of living, in terms of their health and well-being, due to advances in health and manufacturing knowledge derived from animal testing. Opponents of animal testing argue that that testing, especially testing for non-medical substances, is excessive and unnecessary, causing a great loss of animal life and inflicting suffering for the diminished pursuit of producing non-vital, socially irrelevant products, like perfumes, cosmetics, and toiletries.
Vivisection, the practice of experimenting on animals, started as a result of religious prohibitions against the dissection of human corpses (WAVA, 2005). By the time these prohibitions were taken away, the practice of animal vivisection for medical, cosmetic and military purposes, had become common practice in various institutions around the world.
Animals are subjected to tremendous suffering for the sake of science and technological advancement (WAVA, 2005). Estimates of animals tortured…… [Read More]
Animal testing is not only for the benefit of the humans but is also beneficial to the animals themselves. "The research of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences benefits animals because NIEHS research contributes to protecting the environment for all the life that shares the earth - companion animals, farm animals, wildlife, marine life - and plant life as well" (Anonymous). Much more animals are consumed as a food source by humans and only a small percentage are used for animal testing. Some of these animals are also the ones that are abandoned and are kept in pounds or shelters (Kate Kristoff). Animal testing has been proved to be beneficial regarding a lot of diseases and this cannot be denied by anyone. Scientists do not love to put animals to testing for no reason whatever. There are legislations that prevent any cruelty and thus animals are kept under humane conditions. It is no wonder that recently "500 top UK scientists and doctors today signed a declaration defending the use of animals in medical research and scientific testing" (Finfacts Team).
Many do express their concern that animals are put through pain when they are killed but this is only a misconception. Animals are killed in such a way that they do not feel any pain. They die before they can even suffer. It is important for animal testing to continue for the benefit of humans as well as animals. Some of the benefits which animal testing has brought about are the vaccines of rabies, mumps, polio, TB and it has also made it possible to perform open-heart operations as well as organ transplantation.
People might talk about the benefits of animal testing but it is established that animal testing can delay the production of drugs which would be beneficial to the humans because they expressed adverse reactions in the animals. Such was seen in the case of Protease inhibitor drugs and their delay causing the deaths of numerous people who were suffering from HIV infection. There are other alternatives which include test tube experimentations of human tissue cultures. These should be opted…… [Read More]
These experiments are done to see how the humans fair on with the treatment or the diseases without putting much consideration to whether it would survive or die FRAME Reduction Committee, 2005()
Some other ways in which animals are unethically used for scientific purposes include in cases where Genetically modification is done on animals where some of their genes are added or removed as per type of experiment done, use to test for product safety such as in agricultural chemicals, food additives, cosmetic and industrial chemicals, where animals subjected to gas chambers, substances forced into their eyes, stomach or skin EMP, 2004()
Even after subjecting these animals to such harsh test, the success rate for predicting the harmful side effect is still lagging at 5-25%, which is way, below as compared to what the animals have to go through EMP, 2004(; Flint C, 2005)
. Therefore, scientist can also pay attention to the use of the three Rs which are: reduction, refinement and replacement. The use of animals can be reduced substantially through improving the techniques they use, data analysis methods and through embracing sharing of information among scientist. They can refine the experiment or the way these animals are handled and lastly, they can replace the use of animals or lethal techniques and replace with the use of computer models, conducting in vitro test, using epidemiology, thorough postmortem investigation, and use of clinical studies and prevention of these diseases before onset MORI, 2005()
In conclusion, the use of animal in research has led to remarkable progress in medical experiments to the extent that billions of people can now enjoy having quality lives. Though their use is advantageous to human, what about on the animal side? Do they benefit from these experiments as much as we do? The way these animals are handled, breed and used for the experiment is unethical and even though scientist still rely on these animals, their use should be in an ethical manner. There should be guidelines to be adhered before an animal is taken to the laboratory for experiment.…… [Read More]
Animal Testing: Pros and Cons
Animal testing is when animals are used in scientific experiments (Richards). Most animal testing is done by universities, pharmaceutical companies, and medical schools. Most animals used for research are breed for the specific purpose of testing and few animals used for testing are captured from the wild. Some animal testing is done for basic research such as behavior studies and genetics while other animal testing is done for the benefit of humans. This research includes drug testing, surgical procedures, medical equipment, and somewhat inconsequential applications like; cosmetics, and other household products. Most animals that are used for researched are euthanized once the experiment is finished.
Opinions about the ethics of animal testing have shifted greatly through the end of the 20th century and into the 21st century (Dixon). Some question the accuracy of animal testing and if animal testing can be done humanely. Others argue that animal testing is an invaluable tool for research and that countless lifesaving medical breakthroughs are the result of animal testing.
Many who are against animal testing claim that the treatment of the animals is inhumane. Many groups argue that animals have the same right to life as human beings and that it is not worth euthanizing animals for the benefit of mankind (Aldhous, Coghlan and Copley). Many also argue that using animals to test the effects of cosmetics and household products is not an important enough reason to sacrifice an animal.
In animal testing, countless animals are experimented on and then killed after their use. Others are injured and will still live the remainder of their lives in captivity (Richards). The unfortunate aspect is that many of these animals received tests for substances that will never actually see approval or public consumption and use. It is this aspect of animal testing that many view as a major negative against the practice. This aspect seems to show the idea that the animal…… [Read More]
" [Peter Tatchell]. Thus it is clear that animal models provide unreliable and often contradictory results for pharmaceutical research experiments and also delay the development of vital drugs that could potentially save millions of humans.
New Testing Methods
Advancements in biotechnology have drastically impacted our understanding of diseases and the development of appropriate pharmacological interventions. 'Science-Based Toxicology' (SBT) enables us to study toxicity at the cellular level. There is definitive hope that SBT
would replace cumbersome and often misleading animal studies in the near future. The ability to use parallel screening methods imply that SBT research can expedite drug synthesis by avoiding the long delay involved with the animal testing phase. The use of 'Structure Activity relationship Models' makes it possible to accurately predict toxicity of the test drugs.[Animal Aid] in vitro testing methods such as EYTEX, Skintex can replace painful and cruel animal tests such as the Draize test. [Animal Liberation Inc. ] Europe is at the forefront of banning animal testing and the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) has already approved alternative tests such as Agarose Diffusion Method', a standardized test for measuring the toxicity of synthetic chemicals, 'Corrositex test' and the 'Transcutaneous Electrical Resistance Assay', for analyzing skin corrosivity and the AMES test for studying carcinogenicty, etc. [Animal Liberation Inc.] One of the new European standards is a pyrogenic test to replace the costly Litmus assay and Rabbit tests. According to Dr. Thomas Hartung, PhD, head of the ECVAM, this new alternative testing method would "eliminate the need for 200,000 rabbits a year that were used to test biological compounds" [Gunjan Sinha, 2006]
There is enough evidence that clearly point out that vivisection has to be abolished. The recent comparative studies have revealed the inappropriateness of using animal models for human therapeutic experiments. So far, animal models have been faulty indicators and have caused much delay in the development of the much-awaited drugs to combat HIV. Animal models have also proved dangerous and contradictory in the research for anti-cancer drugs. The rapid development of Toxicogenomics has allowed for alternative, cheaper and more accurate toxicology studies. It is time to replace cruel animal testing with in vitro testing methods. There is no…… [Read More]
Animal Testing Debate
Animal testing as well as experimenting, is a practice that has been there from the fifteenth century, even though the activity become more popular in the 1800's. Ever since individuals that realized animals could feel pain, a debate on animal testing became an issue as well as a controversial topic.
Every year scientists experiment with around 100 million monkeys, rats, dogs mice, and fish in the name of medical discoveries. The animals are exposed to medicines and therapies, which could be the next drug for cancer treatment. The majority of animals involved in the study are rats as well as mice. Animal testing is significant in the medical world as animal experimentation plays a vital role in numerous medical advances (Gahlmann, 1993). These include development of vaccines, surgical techniques and antibiotics.
Great discoveries have been by using animal testing in transplants of kidneys, disease treatment such as diabetes and tuberculosis. An oral drug used as experiment has been instrumental in lowering the levels of blood sugar and irritation in mice associated with Type 2 diabetes. This suggests that the medication can…… [Read More]
Animal Testing Statistics
In research, reports, and activism efforts, statistics are often used to strengthen a specific cause or viewpoint. The challenge, particularly from the viewpoint of the reader, is that many of these statistics, while not inaccurately quoted, tend to be taken out of context. This creates an inaccurate focus that was unintended when the statistics were created in the first place. This phenomenon is clear in the guest post by Robin Lovell-Badge (2013) where the author makes a claim about the accuracy of quoting animal testing statistics to strengthen the cause against such testing on animals.
What particularly surprised me about the post is the explanation of the usefulness of animal testing in developing medicines. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of animal testing among animal activists who would have these terminated. While most drugs tested on animals fail to make it to the human trial phase, the purpose of such testing is not as much creating new drugs for human consumption as it focuses on protecting those people taking part in trials and protecting the public itself. In this context, the failure becomes useful rather than useless. Animal drug testing is useful for its ability to identify drugs that are potentially harmful or even fatal for human consumption.
Another thing that surprised me was the title. It made me question whether there are really that many statistics that are quoted out of context. Nine out of ten appears to be a very high number for misused and misquoted statistics. Of course, I can understand how activists and politicians would be tempted to use statistics for their own gain, but surely there are many, many research studies and other academic contexts within which statistics are not misrepresented.
I believe that many people are eager to believe reported statistics for several reasons. First, statistics tend to impart a sense of confidence in what is being said. Statistics about any subject provides a certain ideal of support for whatever opinion or claim is being made, especially if the statistics are quoted from credible sources.…… [Read More]
animal testing. The writer argues that animal testing is a necessity and that alternative testing is not as effective. There were four sources used to complete this paper.
Throughout the years there have been many groups who have protested using animals for the purpose of testing products. These products include medical products, consumer products and research for cures and discoveries about illnesses and disorders. The groups who protest the use of animals say that it is cruel to use them for the tests when alternative methods could be found. While alternative methods have been developed for many types of testing the use of animals for testing must still be embraced. Alternative testing methods have not proven themselves to be as reliable as animal testing.
Those who oppose animal testing believe that it is inhumane treatment of living things. Over the years there have been hotly debated arguments over the use of animal testing as well as sits ins, protests and other types of demonstrations regarding the practice (Ahmad, 1999). There are some who disagree with the use of animal testing in the cosmetic industry while agreeing that the medical field needs toe green light to use animals in its research. Then there are those who completely protest any animal testing at all even in the face of curing diseases (Policy, 2001).
People who use animals to conduct research say that they have no ill feelings towards the animals and they try and conduct the research in such a manner that it will be as comfortable for the animal as possible while still obtaining the answers that they need from the research (Wereschagin, 2000). There is a group called FACTS, which attempts to correct any misconception about the facts in animal research that are being promoted. In addition there are strict federal regulations about animal research and how it is conducted; what it can be used for and what it cannot be used for. It is called the Federal Animal…… [Read More]
UK legislation requires that researchers refine their procedures to keep suffering to the minimum, ensure the number of animals is reduced to the minimum required for meaningful results, and seek to replace the use of animals with non-animal alternatives where appropriate" (the Royal Society, 2004). This argument is valid from the point-of-view of the necessity of animal testing. The attempts to reduce the pain and discomfort of animals are significant for their added value to science. That is to say that even the research conducted to limit the discomfort can provide important information for scientists.
Some of the most common animals on which tests are being conducted are the monkeys that are considered to be relatively close in terms of structure and behavior to humans. Therefore, the question is often related to the ethical and moral nature of testing on monkeys. However, in terms of the added value provided by the information retrieved from tests, a cure for the Parkinson disease for instance was developed as a result of such tests (Ringach, 2011). As per the Americans for Medical Progress, "In the past few years, Parkinson's research has advanced to the point that halting disease progression and even preventing Parkinson's are considered realistic goals" (2012)
Depending on the type of animals used for laboratory testing, the advantages for this practice are varied. The major convenient for animal testing is related to the short life span of the animals. More precisely, "Rodents are the animal model of choice for modern medical researchers because they have a naturally short life span -- two to three years -- that allows scientists to observe in "fast forward" what happens during the progress or pathogenesis of a disease."(Trull, n.d.) This comes to point out that laboratory testing on animals do not necessarily imply or aim for short-term effects and conclusions, but rather they try to follow long-term effects that can afterwards be described and adjusted to human beings. The short life span of animals used for such testing ensures that medicine advances at a faster pace largely because it allows the possibility to observe immediate results as opposed to less painful yet longer in terms of duration for conclusions on certain tests.
The discussion over the moral nature of animal testing goes even further to stress that under certain conditions more analysis must be conducted…… [Read More]
In this case those supporting testing might proclaim there is no evidence suggesting the animal always suffers ill-effects, therefore testing is not always wrong.
This methodology however is flawed. Proponents of animal testing fail to consider the number of animals that experience reduced life span or reduced quality of life resulting in the confined environment in which they must live while testing. Further, proponents of testing fail to identify what types of tests are safe and which are not. The very fact that animals must be used to test something suggests that some danger is always imminent, thus the life or quality of life of animals tested is always at risk. It does not matter whether that risk is small or very large. All risk is worthy of consideration and notice.
Unfortunately those whose religious practices forbid the use of animals as experimental tools often go to extreme measures to prove their vantage is correct. They consistently rely on moral and ethically clauses that may not be universally accepted. One way to get around this is through a process of communication and collaboration, where all parties agree to meet and come to an acceptable resolution satisfying the needs of both parties.
With respect to animal rights there is a middle ground that can be acceptable to both opponents and proponents of animal testing. This middle ground is not extreme; rather, it would force animal testing companies to engage in "humane reform" (Regan, 688). This type of reform is one that allows each party to identify what practices are safe and generally well tolerated and which practices must be abolished due to their nature.
Many persons strongly oppose the use of animals for scientific, sport, vanity and other forms of testing. On the other hand, many proponents insist the use of animals is…… [Read More]
Today, there is hardly any product, from shampoo to pharmaceutical drugs that has not undergone animal testing before reaching the public marketplace. Without this research, many of the life-saving therapies available today would not exist.
Human use of animals for experimental purposes dates from pre-Christian times, and Alexandrian physicians Herophilus and Erasistratus were the first to use living animals during the 3rd century B.C. (Animal Pp). Andreas Verslius created the modern science of anatomy by systematic dissection of and experimentation on living animals during the mid-1500's, and William Harvey's demonstration of the circulation of the blood in 1628, relied on a combination of dissection and animal experimentation as well (Animal Pp). During the 1820's and 1830's, Francois Magendie conducted extensive animal experiments that led to notable advance in neuro-physiology (Animal Pp). In the 1880's, the emergence of bacteriology and immunology hinged on experiments on living animals (Animal Pp).
Supporters of vivisection have always argued that such experiments provide great benefits for humankind, that animals suffer to prevent future human and animal suffering (Animal Pp). Diabetes is most often cited as an "example of a disease tamed through a cure developed by the use of animal experimentation and using a substance, insulin, taken from animal bodies (Animal Pp). Through the years the number of animal experiments has steadily risen, over five million experiments were being performed annually on vertebrates in Britain alone by 1980 (Animal Pp). The United States has taken an active role in encouraging proper care and use of laboratory animals since 1896 when the National Institute of Health was founded (Vivisection Pp).
Today, strict rules and procedures outlined by the NIH and a number of other public and private organizations ensure ethical and sensitive use of animals for research (Vivisection Pp). The United States Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Regulations are among the most important documents setting forth requirements for animal care and use by institutions using animals in research, testing, and education and have been effective since 1985 (Vivisection Pp). Animals most frequently used in laboratories include rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, and monkeys, when animals that closely resemble humans…… [Read More]
The amount of heed to be given regarding the rights of animals has remained to be a heated argument these past few years due to the new, innovative ways of people and their treatment of animals in various situations. The most common concern of those worried about animals is the method of scientists to test products on animals to see how successful they are and whether the products may potentially cause harm to humans if they use them.
Animal testing has numerous categories. While a few scientists make use of animals for medicinal experiments, others may use it to test the safety of cosmetics and other products for human use. The key factor due to which this argument has still gone on is the constant questioning as to why one should care about animals and the danger to them when we test products on them. A common misconception has also successfully spread amongst people that after animals are tested; they can easily be placed back into their natural habitat, or be adopted by anyone willing to do so. However, the reality is entirely different from this misconception.
Although it is still not confirmed, some studies do show that animals have emotions and feelings. They can feel happiness and sorrow, health and pain. Therefore, testing potential products on animals such as rabbits and mice is a huge trial for them. Reports on the whole process of animal testing show that items are applied on such animals as needed to ensure that the chemicals in it do not produce a damaging effect to the skin and eyes and also to check if there is any side effect by long-term use. In the process however, a lot of animals upon whom testing is done, suffer pain, discomfort and at times, die because of the strength of the products being tested. Such cruelty brings forth a multitude of reactions by people who are aware of this issue. (Judson)
The first argument for those who do not pay heed to this issue is that it does not matter if animals are tested this way and are put in pain. This is rather a cold outlook towards the suffering of animal beings. There are several pros and cons to animal testing which various writers have put forth as the opinions of the general public.
The…… [Read More]
Two main aims of the zoos are highlighted by the author in the article. Firstly, zoos provide the environments that are suitable and represent some level of wilderness. Secondly, the zoos must provide entertainment to the visitors. But the zoos have been criticized by the author. One of the most important facts in these cases is the relationship between pornography and zoos as given by the authors. The way animals are represented in the zoos in the pictures has been very much compared with the sexual representation in pornography. From here, it can be realized that the animal representation is very offensive. Another important fact that has been highlighted by the author is that the zoos are failing to provide the correct education about the life of the animals. The main education that is now being provided by the zoos to the visitors is that the animals have been captivated for the entertainment of human beings. The animals that have been kept captive are to be understood in terms of their needs and requirements. The modern zoos do not certainly understand the needs that these animals have which are the main aim of the arguments given by the author in the article. One of the most important examples in these cases as given by the author is that of jaguar whose total required wild land equals ten times the land of the zoos where these jaguars are held captive (Acampora, 2005, p. 77).
Three important books and articles have been discussed in the previous sections with summaries with the help of which the main aims of the books and the article can be understood. The main aims of the highlighted readings are to highlight the rights of the animals. The first two books highlighted in the previous section is in relation to the animal testing, cosmetic making and how the foods being consumed by the human beings is at the cost of the sacrifice of the non-human animals. Some of the main facts that have been highlighted by Singer is…… [Read More]
Animal testing or animal experimentation is a necessary evil. At least that is what some say. Others believe animal testing should cease as society evolves past the need to experiment on living creatures. The topic remains a hot button issue.
It rings especially true for those who adopt a vegan lifestyle and believe animals should have the same rights as people in terms of value of life and so forth. Although animal testing has ceased in some cosmetic companies and label their goods as not animal tested, most companies, especially pharmaceutical companies, rely on animals to test drugs and vaccines in order to promote evolution of medicine but refrain from putting human lives at risk. This essay will show the pro and con sides of animal testing/animal experimentation. Does it remain as unavoidable or can society move past animal testing and find new ways to test products and medicines?
The current literature shows pros and cons to animal testing and perhaps helps illustrate the need or aversion to animal testing. For example, the pro-side argues animal testing helps avoid loss of human life by enabling experimentation and discovery of vaccines and medicines that could help cure alleviate disease and injury in humans. The con may argue animal experimentation promotes a negative society focused on brutality and violence. Animal experimentation became so reviled thanks to campaigns against the subject showing animals tested on, that companies have gone so far as to state they do not test on animals. The literature will present pros and cons and help deliver a conclusion and opinion on the topic.
In 2012, Michael Balls wrote an article discussing the new ways in which pharmaceutical companies could test drugs on human cells without hurting humans and eliminating entirely animal testing. Essentially people could donate cells to a clinic that then retains those cells, replicate them and provide them to pharma and researchers to test their theories and products.
Cells will be provided to academic researchers, private -- public partnerships, biotechs and pharma for research, early drug discovery and safety assessment. The aim of the iPS cell centre is, therefore, to respond to the current and rapidly increasing demand for efficacy and toxicity testing using iPS cells from disease relevant…… [Read More]
Science and the sub-science of chemistry has provided some significant advances to society and the health and welfare of society. Throughout this history, animals have been used as components of these chemical tests and there is much debate about the ethics and effectiveness of this practice. The purpose of this essay is to describe how animal testing is no longer a viable option in many cases of scientific experiment and should be used sparingly if at all. This argument will incorporate differing attitudes about the complex nature of this problem and synthesize these ideas with a relevant link towards further understanding of science and chemistry.
History of Animal Testing
The problem can be difficult because it appears that throughout the history of animal testing, great advances were made in chemistry and other sciences. Scutti (2013) added that "n ancient times, scientists made use of animals principally to satisfy anatomical curiosity. Early Greek physician-scientists performed experiments on living animals. Herophilus and Erasistratus, for example, examined sensory nerves, motor nerves, and tendons in order to understand their functional differences." Only recently in the 20th century has society seen a drift away from animal testing. This new philosophy is firmly rooted in the ideals of consideration for other living things and denotes a new chapter in human history. A new paradigm is set that sets to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, refine the experiment to reducing suffering, and in as many cases as possible, replace experiments on animals with better substitutes.
Animal Testing is not Viable
Before examining the ethical aspects of the argument it is important to help determine of animal testing is actually providing any net benefit to science or humanity. PETA suggested the animal testing is not worth the time or effort. Their organization wrote "Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply of out curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past…… [Read More]
controversy with regard to preclinical testing on animals, as society has reached a point where the ethics behind testing drugs on animals makes it difficult and almost impossible for researchers to continue to perform their studies. Institutions such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration agency are unhesitant about supporting testing in animals because this is in most cases the most effective way to find out more about a drug's potential effects on a human. Even though testing on animals can be considered cruel by some, the reality is that it is one of the principal reasons why society as a whole was able to produce some of the drugs that helped mankind evolve rapidly during recent decades.
In order to see the topic of animal testing in a context enabling a person to understand why it is significant, one would have to consider the numerous cases when drugs that appeared to be especially effective proved to have disastrous consequences. In many cases this happened because the people researching these drugs were either unable or unwilling to test them on animals before going through with Phase I trials. Thalidomide is probably one of the best-known drugs when considering drugs that proved the significance of testing on animals. This drug appeared during the 1960s and seemed like the perfect solution to morning sickness usually observed in pregnant women. "What women didn't realize at the time was that thalidomide could cause serious birth defects if it was taken during pregnancy." (Watson 4) This makes it possible for someone to comprehend the effects that untested drugs can have on the world.
As cruel as animal testing might seem, the idea is…… [Read More]
animals for testing [...] why we should use animals for testing. It will include arguments on why using animals for testing is a widespread and scientifically sound practice. The use of animals in testing has been going on for thousands of years, and has led to some of the most significant and live saving medical breakthroughs on the planet. Medical testing using animals should certainly be humane, but should continue, as it saves lives and helps researchers discover life-saving technologies before testing on humans.
USING ANIMALS FOR TESTING
Using animals for scientific research is a highly controversial practice. Many highly visible animals rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), have sprung up over the years that decry the use of animals for testing under any circumstances. In the case of PETA, their animal rights activities often spill over into the questionable, as their recent ad campaign "Holocaust on Your Plate," which compared the killing of animals to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany during World War II. To many, this ad campaign was incredibly tasteless and offensive. It clearly illustrates how animal rights activists go over the top in their campaigns to save all animals. Using animals for testing has given the world many life-saving medicines and medical techniques, and very well may have saved many of those animal activists from deadly diseases and epidemics that went unchecked before animal testing yielded results.
PETA's case for ending all testing on animals is not realistic. The use of animals for medical research and testing has gone on for thousands of years, and has yielded many important results. For example, in 1726, scientist Stephen Hales measured the first blood pressure, not on a human, but on a horse. In 1881, famed scientist Louis Pasteur proved the "germ theory of disease by inoculating sheep against anthrax."
In 1885, Pasteur developed the rabies vaccine, and in 1964, "Dr. Michael DeBakey performs the first coronary bypass surgery using techniques perfected on animals."
These are only a few of the many life-saving scientific developments throughout the years that owe their origins to animal testing. Who…… [Read More]
In addition, the practice of testing cosmetics and other personal items on animals was accepted practice for many years. For example, countless rabbits were blinded to test the safety of mascaras and eye products (Carbone 24) before animal rights activists spoke up and asked the haunting question, "How many rabbits does Revlon blind for the sake of beauty?'" (Carbone 24). This use of animals for vanity seems unusually cruel and needless, and it seems there must be some other way to test new ideas, drugs, and treatments without wasting the lives of innocent animals.
Many scientists and health care professionals argue that medical research with animals is absolutely necessary to cure disease and make human life better and healthier. They maintain that animal research is absolutely necessary because in the end it saves human lives. Clearly, researchers have learned much from animal research, and have made great strides in science and medicine because of this research. DeGrazia notes "the advancement of basic biological knowledge -- proponents cite progress in the areas of Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, basic genetics, cancer, cardiovascular disease, haemophilia, malaria, organ transplantation, treatment of spinal cord injuries, and countless others" (DeGrazia 103). How many countless humans would have died from these diseases and afflictions if serious animal research had not been done?
This is one of the thorniest issues of the animal rights movement. When does the end justify the means? Often, as in the case of these serious diseases, it seems the end does justify the means. Numerous lives have been saved or made better because of the sacrifice of animals. However, the question remains. How much of this research could have been accomplished in some other way, without harming animals? As it has been shown, there are often other ways to accomplish even the most demanding research, and simply using animals may be the accepted practice because it has been done for so long, but it may not be the only way to accomplish complicated and necessary research.
Even those who do not agree with using animals for research and testing do admit that there are great gains from doing so. It seems there are two distinct areas where animal…… [Read More]