Animal testing in scientific research and ethics

¶ … 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 knows how many people might have continued to succumb to rabies, heart disease, and other deadly diseases if animal testing had not been available? It is much preferable to test early disease theories on animals, rather than humans, which would truly be inhumane.

There are up to 23 million animals used in the United States for research purposes each year. A vast majority of these animals are rats and mice which laboratories breed specifically for testing purposes. Many people believe that most animals used for testing are dogs, cats, and primates, but this is not the case, as the numbers of those animals used for testing has been steadily declining during the past 30 years.

In addition, using animals for testing saves billions of dollars each year in new medications that treat disorders which were previously untreatable.

A report by the Lasker Foundation concluded that Americans save $9 billion every year from the development of lithium as a treatment for bipolar disorder, development for which animal research was crucial. A $56 million research program on testicular cancer has yielded a 91% cure rate, and annual savings of $166 million.

Clearly, using animals for testing saves lives, money, and makes sense. Using humans, or even cadavers for the same testing would not only be more expensive monetarily, it would be incredibly expensive in human lives. The entire premise of testing is based on creating new treatments which might be harmful or even deadly until their components are understood and managed. Using humans to test potentially deadly compounds would be unconscionable. Using animals, especially those that are bred in the lab specifically for medical research is not only cost effective, it is morally the correct thing to do. Some animal activists point to research done by cosmetic firms as a use of animals in testing that should be banned. One expert notes, "Rights thought dictates that we cannot kill one rights-holder to save another - or even more than one other - whether or not the life of the former is 'different' from that of the latter."

However, millions also use cosmetics and health care products, and if any ingredient is potentially harmful, it is far better to discover it in animal testing rather than in testing on humans. Animal testing simply makes sense for a variety of reasons, including cost savings, preservation of human life, and the safety and security of future generations.