Animals for Research Because it

¶ … animals for research because it is cruel to the animals and this research can be accomplished in other ways. Using animals for research purposes in the scientific and medical communities has been an accepted practice for years, but it has come under fire as more people understand just how inhumanely these animals are treated. The animals cannot speak up for themselves, so animal rights activists do it for them, often in graphic and vocal ways. Using animals for research is wrong, because it is cruel and it harms animals that have no way to defend themselves. Animals should only be used for research in very specific situations, such as when the animal is not at all harmed by the research.

What is animal research? Simply put, it is the use of caged, laboratory animals for medical and scientific research. The research is eventually used to develop new products, new medical breakthroughs, and a deeper understanding of medical conditions - hopefully to find a cure or a better way of treating the disease or affliction. However, animals are also used in research for chemicals, beauty products, and just about anywhere scientists would not think of using humans as "guinea pigs." Instead, they use the guinea pigs themselves, and this is what animal rights activists actively protest. However, most people only have certain mental images of what goes on in an animal research lab. Dr. Larry Carbone, an animal research veterinarian notes,

Research uses of animals vary widely. Some animals are used to produce cells or tissues for use in test tubes and tissue culture. This may be as simple as humanely euthanizing an animal to collect cells and organs. Or it could require several months of immunizing a rabbit to collect blood samples rich in antibodies. Some projects require complicated surgeries, as when surgeons and immunologists work together to develop organ transplant procedures or to study organ rejection (Carbone 24).

While there are many forms of research, one of the most chilling aspects of this research is that the animals are commonly killed at the end of the project, when they are of no further scientific use to the scientist. Carbone continues, "at the end of such a long procedure the animal may either be awakened from anesthesia or, more likely, euthanized" (Carbone 25). This is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of animal research - the animals serve only one purpose - scientific, and when the scientists are through with them, even healthy animals are euthanized rather than given another chance at life.

Unfortunately, animals are not only used and abused in scientific research. They are also often used in other forms of sociological and psychological research. For example, in the 1950s through the 1970s, according to author David DeGrazia, a researcher in Wisconsin studied primates and how total isolation and maternal deprivation affected them. Some of his experiments included isolating newborn chimpanzees from all external stimuli. He also subjected babies to "monster mothers" who were cloth replicas of chimps that rejected the babies in a variety of ways, from "one that ejected the infant with a spring, and another that suddenly emitted sharp spikes" (DeGrazia 99). The researcher maintained this was necessary to understand what deprivation and isolation did to young children, but the author continues, "John Bowlby, a leading researcher in this [same] area, had concluded that prolonged deprivation of maternal care had profoundly negative effects on young children. Rather than using monkeys to learn about human children, Bowlby had studied refugees, war orphans, and institutionalized children" (DeGrazia 100). Thus it can be seen that in many areas, the use of animals for research is not necessary, and creative and enterprising scientists can find other, more humane ways to accomplish the same goals.

There is even more compelling evidence that animal research is harmful and even lethal to the animals used in experiments. Author DeGrazia continues, "Furthermore, we must remember that in animal research particular benefits are only possible and hoped for, whereas the harms to animal subjects are immediate and certain. (Thus, countless experiments harm animals without yielding benefits)" (DeGrazia 105). This shows that as with most research, at least some of it is entirely useless, and the research animals have given their lives for literally nothing. 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.