|
Animal Experimentation uses living animals to find out answers to
scientific questions. People in medical research use animals for two
main reasons: to make sure that medicines are as safe and effective as
possible before doctors give them to people and to find out more about
how the body works. Without animal experimentation, many of the most
important advances in modern medicine would never have occurred. But
for researchers’ painstaking work with animal subjects, deadly viruses
like rabies and yellow fever could have become modern versions of the
Black Death, and our knowledge about human health and physiology would
have been drastically limited. Yet the overwhelming benefits of animal
experimentation have failed to persuade one group of extremists. Animal
rights activists, motivated by abstract concerns about animal welfare
and well-being, have zealously asserted that the use of animals in
medical research is morally evil and should be severely curtailed, or
even eliminated altogether. Due to the proponents on both sides
bringing strong emotions into the issue of animal experimentation,
there have been fires and break-ins as well as the hundreds of
thousands of dollars spent on new alarms and electric locks. However,
despite what opponents’ incorrectly claim, studies prove that animal
experimentation is the best way to insure the well being of humans,
since medical studies can be advanced in accurate manner.
Opponents of animal experimentation are correct in saying that the
psychological testing is inhumane, but are incorrect when preaching
about the other methods of research that are available. It is true that
the past psychological experiments on animals were unnecessarily cruel,
since there was no immediate benefit for humans. Such as the experiment
in which scientists designed mechanical surrogate mothers who would
eject sharp spikes as the youngsters hugged them, in order “to gauge
the effects of child abuse on young monkey”(qtd in Cowley 53-54).
However, these types of experiments no longer occur for the most part,
because of the recent law passed, governing animal care in
laboratories. Nowadays, facilities housing dogs must let them exercise
and those housing primates must provide for their psychological
well-being. To ensure that this is being done all laboratories are
required to set up animal-care committees and submit to annual
inspections. Opponents to animal experimentation mistakenly believe
that substitute methods such as cell culture and computer modeling
should be pursued, rather than research involving animals. This
argument is inherently false. For one, animal experimentation has been
around for thousands of years because of how closely related we are to
animals. For example, “The genetic package of a chimp varies from our
own by no more than 1 percent, most researchers agree”(Caras 57). It
would be nice, of course, if there were alternatives to vivisection
that could deliver the same benefits without the death and suffering.
But there is a limit to what can be accomplished with cell cultures and
computer models. The experiments have to be done in a living system,
where all the things we don’t know about are going on. Although
opponents are truthful when saying that psychological experimentation
on animals is cruel, the medical testing on animals is still fair as
well as precise.
Proponents of animal experimentation are correct in saying how
imperative it is to continue animal testing because of how much more
valuable human life is than animal life and the importance of finding
treatments. It is much less painful to face the consequences of animal
subjects than to face the continual suffering experienced by a family
loved one. Jane McCabe’s nine-year old daughter, Claire, suffers from
cystic fibrosis, diseases that can be partially treated by medicines
discover through animal experimentation. The animals that were given
the disease did suffer. However, their suffering does not overshadow
the human suffering involved. Jane McCabe says, “It’s not that I don’t
love animals, it’s just that I love Claire more”(55). In this case, and
in countless others, the human suffering was clearly lessened because
of animal research findings. As a result, of the animals being
experimented on, many human lives have been saved because of the new
cures that have been discovered. The killing of animals under
experimentation is with purpose: it has immense practical benefits such
as lifesaving treatments. Animal models have advanced the study of such
diseases as cancer, diabetes and alcoholism. One such case takes place
at the University of California School of Medicine, where monkeys are
being infected with the simian AIDS virus, to see whether early
treatment with the drug AZT will keep them from developing symptoms.
This experiment is an advantage to humans, “Because the monkeys
normally get sick with in 10 months of infection-not the three to five
years common in humans” (Cowley 52). Meaning that they are able to
discover to treatment more rapidly than by testing the treatments on
humans, leading to quicker cures for such diseases. When you come right
down to it, the animal’s lives that are at stake during experiments are
not as important as the life of a human and is crucial in developing
new and better treatments.
Advocates of animal experimentation are right in saying that the
experiments are appropriate because they do in fact lead to the
discovery of new cures and advances surgical procedures. Probably one
of the strongest arguments that the proponents have against the other
opponents of animal experimentation is the fact that countless lives
that have been saved because of the cures that have been discovered.
One of those lives was my great-grandmother who at a young age was
diagnosed with polio, experiencing the early stages of the disease.
However, “Vaccines developed through animal research have virtually
wiped out diseases like smallpox and polio” (Cowley 51). Therefore,
because she was treated while still in the early stages of the disease
she is still alive today living a happy and fruitful life at the age of
eighty-six. Another advantage that pertains to animal experimentation,
is the newer and better surgical procedures come from the testing. Many
experiments on animals are being done to improve medical procedures
across the country. One such study has been performed for quite some
time at Emory University’s Yerkes center, where researchers are
performing cataract surgery on healthy baby rhesus monkeys, in an
effort to improve postsurgical therapies for the human children that
undergo the operation. The question that people should ask themselves
is whether research should be continued on baby monkeys or we should
let our children go blind if they end up with a cataract? The obvious
and appropriate answer comes from the argument given in the last
paragraph, that we should be more worried about our children becoming
blind rather than monkeys who lack language and rational thought. It is
proven as stated by neurobiologist Ronald Boothe that, “By me doing
this research, we can prevent them from going blind. Most people, given
that choice, will think it’s justified” (Cowley 53). Proponents of
animal experimentation make it clear that the gains far outweigh the
costs.
Even though opponents of animal experimentation unconvincingly
allege that it is inhumane and that other methods should take
precedence in research, the fact still remains that the superior race
should be taken into account when deciding the most exact method to
progress medically. It has been made clear that those advocates are
wrong by declaring animal experimentation as inhumane, and that it
should be substituted by other ineffective methods. When in fact the
inhumane thing to do, would be to ignore the species made in God’s
image. This would eliminate many of the medical advancements made
causing countless numbers of humans to suffer and even worse die to
save these creatures. There is an alternative to animal experimentation
that would please both the animal activists and the scientists. We
could use death row inmates as real human guinea pigs. This practice
may even act as a greater deterrent against crime than the electric
chair, lethal injection, or gas chamber. Since the would be criminal,
who lost his right to live, would now be aware that if he chooses to
take someone’s life he will end up becoming a human guinea pig.
|
|
|
(0 vote)