|
The application of animals to test a large number of products from
household compounds and cosmetics to Pharmaceutical products has been
considered to be a normal strategy for many years. Laboratory animals
are generally used in three primary fields: biomedical research,
product security evaluation and education. (Animal Experiments) It has
been estimated that approximately, 20 million animals are being used
for testing and are killed annually; about 15 million of them are used
to test for medication and five million for other products. Reports
have been generated to indicate that about 10 percent of these animals
are not being administered with painkillers. The supporters of animal
rights are pressurizing government agencies to inflict severe
regulations on animal research. However, such emerging criticisms of
painful experimentation on animals are coupled with an increasing
concern over the cost it would have on the limitation of scientific
progress. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)
Around the world, animals are utilized to test products ranging from
shampoo to new cancer drugs. Each and every medication used by humans
is first tested on the animals. Animals were also applied to develop
anesthetics to ease human ailments and suffering during surgery.
(Animal Experiments) Currently, questions have been raised about the
ethics surround animal testing. As a result several regulations have
been put in place to evaluate and control the animals being used for
testing purposes. These regulations hope to ensure that such research
is carried out in a humanely and ethical manner. (Testing on Animals: A
Patient’s Perspective) Acceptance of such experimentations is subject
to a lot of argumentation. As the statistics indicate animal testing is
dangerous and harmful, but medical research must continue. We need to
find other testing techniques that are advanced in order to eliminate
this harmful process, till then all we can do is continue with our
research.
Arguments for testing
The supporters of animal testing argue that if animal testing is
eliminated, that many of the medications and procedures that we
currently use today would exist and the development of future
treatments would be extremely limited. They argue that humans have been
assisted from the healthcare developments that have been based on the
benefits of animal research and testing for many years now. Supporters
for animal testing argue that research is justified because it assists
in discovering ways to help people and other animals for the future.
Surgery on animals has assisted in developing organ transplant and
open-heart surgery techniques. Animal testing has also assisted in
developing vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles,
mumps, rubella and TB. Development of antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin
and cancer treatments depend upon animal tests. They argue that other
testing techniques are not advanced enough. (Animal Experiments) The
most radical progress in reproductive medicine such as oral
contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, hormone replacement therapy,
etc., have all been made possible by animal research. (Alternatives to
Animal testing on the Web: FAQs)
Medical procedures like measuring blood pressure, pacemakers and
heart and lung machines were used on animals prior to being tried on
humans. Surgery techniques, like those to mend and eliminate bone
diseases were devised out of experimentation on the animals. Animal
testing not only benefits humans but also helps other animals, for
example the heartworm medication that was devised from research on
animals has assisted many dogs. The cat nutrition has been better
comprehended through animal research and has assisted cats to live
longer and healthier lives. (Animal Testing: Why Animals Are Used in
Research?) Animal models for AIDS are very important factors that are
required to understand the biology of immuno-deficiency viruses in the
vivo. This allows us to raise necessary awareness about the processes
of pathogenesis and its prevention by vaccination and chemotherapy.
(Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Those who support
animal testing argue that the society has an obligation to take actions
in ways that will minimize injury and maximize benefits. Banning or
restraining the experimentation on animals would not allow society to
achieve such results. It is assumed that a scientist’s goal is to
devise methods to minimize pain to every extent possible but for now we
have to sacrifice on animals to achieve this result. Activists against
this practice portray scientists to be a society of crazy, cruel,
curiosity seekers. However, when one feeds painkillers to animals, one
should ask where they came from and what their purpose is. Is it to
improve the quality of human life? (Of Cures and Creatures Great and
Small)
Those who support this procedure argue that the advantages that
animal testing has brought to humans is considered a lot greater in
comparison to the costs in terms of the sufferings inflicted on
comparatively less number of animals. They argue that society is
required to maximize the opportunities to generate such valuable
consequences even at the cost of inflicting pain to some animals.
Moreover, many argue that the lives of animals may be worthy of some
respect, but the value we give on their lives does not count as much as
the value we give to human life. Human beings are considered living
beings that have the capability and sensibility that is much higher
than animals. For example if we were put in a dilemma of saving a
drowning baby and a drowning rat is it almost definite that our
instincts will guide us to save the baby first. Is it universally
assumed that humans do not treat the animals as our moral equivalents.
In theory, any living thing is considered an animal if it is not a
plant. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)
As humans it is assumed that we have a moral requirement to prevent
any animals of unnecessary suffering. However, as far as animal testing
is concerned we are confronted with the moral dilemma of a choice
between the welfare of humans or the welfare of animals. Some
supporters of animal testing argue that moral rights and principles of
justice apply only to human beings. Morality is considered as a social
creation out of its eventual process in which we do not associate
animals. Moral rights and moral principles are applicable to those who
are part of the moral community generated by this social process. As
animals are not part of this moral community created by these social
processes our moral obligations do not extend to cover them. However,
we do have moral obligations to our fellow human being that involve the
liability to decline and prevent needless human suffering and untimely
deaths that in turn may entail the painful tests on animals. (Of Cures
and Creatures Great and Small)
A review by the American Medical Association indicated that about 99
percent of active physicians in the US believed that animal research
has given rise to medical advancement, and about 97 percent supported
the persistent use of animals for basic and clinical research. (What
Scientists Say About Animal Research) Scientists found that there are
no such differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be used in
tests. The Research Defense Society – RDS, a British organization
instituted to defend animal testing, maintain that most of the
complaints made against animal testing are not found to be correct and
that animal testing generates valuable information about how new drugs
react inside a living body. Tests are continued to detect major health
problems like liver damage, enhanced blood pressure, nerve damage or
damage to the fetus. Research revealed that the drugs can be distorted
by digestion, and become less successful or more toxic and that such
difficulties cannot be examined by applying cell samples in test tubes.
(Vivisection: Fact Sheet) If animal testing were to be outlawed it
would be impossible to attain the significant knowledge that is
necessary to eliminating much suffering and premature deaths for both
humans and animals. (Animal Experiments)
Arguments against testing
The critics of animal testing base their argument on the grounds of
morality, the necessity or the validity of this procedure, whether
proper authority to perform such tests is granted, whether such tests
are actually needed and whether such tests practically provide us with
any useful information. The supporters of animal rights say that
animals have the right to live their own life peacefully; and we are
not allowed to meddle with them just because we can. (Alternatives to
Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Deaths through research are considered
unnecessary and are morally not different from murder. Animal
dissection is regarded as misleading. (Animal Experiments) Arguments
against animal testing may generate at least two different arguments.
Some believe that the goals of this type of testing are not
significant. The blinding of rabbits to have a new kind of mascara is
yet to be justified. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs)
Others argue that the reaction of an animal to a drug is quite
different than that of a human being. Animals are involved in testing
the products such as cleaning products that assist humans less than
medicines or surgery. (Animal Experiments) The major disadvantage of
animal testing stated by John Frazier and Alan Goldberg of CAAT are
“Animal discomfort and death, species-extrapolation problems and
excessive time and expense.” (Animal Testing Alternatives) Supporters
refute this statement by emphasizing that the brutal treatment of
animals in tests is administered most of the time with anesthesia.
(Animal Testing Alternatives)
The fact that the results attained from experiments on animal
testing do not accurately portray their influence on humans is
considered to be a one of the serious argument against the animal
testing. Humans are quite different from other animals, so the
consequences of animal testing may not applicable to humans. They argue
that they way one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a
particular way does not necessarily entail other species will react in
the same way. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) An
Italian Professor Peitro Croce has been fighting against animal testing
for several years. The arguments he puts forth includes misleading
results of animal tests while they are applied to humans. Parsley is
considered to be a deadly poison for parrots yet we use it to flavor
our food; Arsenic, a poison for humans but it is not harmful to sheep.
Sheep, goats, horses and mice can also eat hemlock in large numbers
while this is toxic to the humans. Lemon juice is toxic to the cats. A
hedgehog can take a sufficient amount of opium can be taken by a
hedgehog at one sitting but humans can’t without the obvious effect.
Morphine is regarded as an anesthetic for humans but if it is
administered to cats; it generates a state of frenzied excitement.
(Vivisection: Fact Sheet) Vitamin C is not something dogs, rats,
hamsters and mice, have to worry about taking, for their bodies
generate Vitamin C. If humans inhale a small amount of prussic acid
fumes it can kill them. However, toads, sheep and hedgehogs can drink
it without any harm; Scopolamine can kill humans with a dose of just 5
milligrams. To dogs and cats about 100 milligrams was considered
harmless. Information like this can be misleading when scientists try
to determine safe dogages. Penicillin, the first antibiotic, was
experimented first on mice. Its application on guinea pigs would have
entailed dangerous consequences, because penicillin controls the floral
bacteria in the stomachs of guinea pigs and destroys them within a few
days. The unpredictability of animal testing was thought to have
harmful effect in the case of fialuridine. This drug successfully
passed its animal test phase without much difficulty. However, when it
is administered on fifteen human volunteers it resulted in severe liver
damage, causing death to five of them and compelling two others to have
liver transplants.
The Medical Research Modernization Committee – MRMC, an American
organization for doctors who are against animal testing, argue that
AIDS research in America has been very unproductive. Animals being
infected with HIV were not successful in developing symptoms quite
similar to those humans develop when they have AIDS. Over a decade more
than 100 chimpanzees have been infected with HIV. But only two have
become ill. The same description continues to prescribe that AIDS may
have been caused by vivisection, with monkey viruses being mutated to
form HIV whist generating a polio vaccine from baboon tissue. It is
definitely true that 15 laboratory workers in the US have been killed
by the Marburg virus and other monkey viruses, and that there have been
two outbreaks of ebola in the US “monkey colonies.” (Vivisection: Fact
Sheet) Critics continue to argue that animal kept in unnatural
conditions, or animals in pain or distress, are not giving rise to
accurate or consistent results anyway. Stringent regulations have not
eliminated researchers from abusing animals even though such instances
are rare. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) As a result
those against animal testing argue that animal testing should be banned
immediately.
My Stance:
The arguments for and against animal experimentation are going to
continue for some time, both between the general public and those
directly involved. Those who oppose animal testing believe that all
testing associated with the use of laboratory animals should be banned
immediately. However, one could argue by saying that a total ban on the
use of animals will prevent a great deal of basic medical research, and
the possible production of certain vaccines. No new medicines would
develop and the safety of workers, the general public and patients
would be at stake. On the other hand, the supporters of animal testing
say that humans have always benefited from the health care developments
that depended upon the accomplishments of animal research and would
continue to benefits from animal testing. However, some argue that
testing for cosmetics and household materials is not adequate enough to
gain support for this argument. There is a lot of pain that these
animals have to undergo for testing; hence animal testing cannot be
supported. But at the same time all animal testing cannot be banned
immediately because it is our only successful channel to develop
medicines and cures. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs)
One cannot argue that all animal testing is useful in all cases but
at the same time all animal testing cannot be disqualified. Hence, I
argue that it is essential to continue testing on animal until a truly
effective alternative is developed, but till then we can play our part
in trying to cut down on animal testing. ‘Replacement’ is not always an
alternative. Some significant type of testing just cannot be done
without animals, at least at this moment. (Alternatives to Animal
testing on the Web: FAQs) There are still no alleviation for many
diseases – contagious diseases like HIV/ AIDS, metabolic diseases like
diabetes, and genetic disease like Cystic Fibrosis and haemophilia. The
necessity for a vaccine against HIV, Hepatitis C and many other
infectious diseases is definitely beyond doubt. (Testing on Animals: A
Patient’s Perspective) Animal testing is morally questionable. It is
bad and wrong but pharmaceutical companies invest millions of dollars
for research and to find cures. It is impossible for all animal testing
to be substituted in the immediate future and it will take time to
devise other methods.
Studies are under way in trying to develop alternative methods of
testing but they are still not developed enough. Most of the scientists
hope to lessen the use of laboratory animals being used today and apply
a minimum number of animals. Last year it was determined that the
toxicity of a new substance was calculated to be ‘LD 50’ – lethal dose
50%. The test used about 200 rats, dogs or other animals to be
force-fed different animals. The current variations in protocol have
exerted a ban on the LD50 test, except in extraordinary conditions.
Additionally, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development entails that when a substance kills the first three animals
it is experimented on, further continuation of trials on them is
considered irrelevant. In the 1970s, the Netherlands applied 5000
monkeys per annum to form the polio vaccines. Now, the kidney cell
cultures from just 10 monkeys entails sufficient information to find a
vaccine for everyone in the country. Hormones or vaccines produced in
cell cultures are also purer than those formed within the animal
themselves. This further decreases the necessity for animal tests to
verify the safety of the vaccines. (Animal Experiments)
Presently there are improved methods to form safe products for human
consumption. The concept of alternatives has been proposed. In W.M.S.
Russell and R.L. Burch’s book ‘The Principles of Humane Experimental
Technique’. They mention three R’s as alternatives. It involves
‘Reduction in number of animals applied, Refinement of strategies to
minimize pain and distress to the animals, and Replacement of the
animal model with a non-animal standard or a species phylo-genetically
lower’. (Why Conduct Literature Searches for Alternatives?) Most of the
large manufacturers of personal care and household products could
implement strategies that are considered cost effective, better
predictors of human injury, produce far quicker results, and do not
associated with animal cruelty. (Animal Testing Alternatives)
Government and humanitarian agencies have financed researches into
the substitutive strategies since the 1960s. (Animal Experiments)
Revlon Cosmetics has financed research studies for substitutions to
animal testing. They donated $750,000 to the Rockefeller University in
1979. Several agencies like the John Hopkins Center for the
Alternatives to Animal testing – CAAT, the International Foundation for
Ethical Research, the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, and
the Soap and Detergent Association followed the trend and initiated
their own projects in finding alternative solutions. (Animal Testing
Alternatives) During the last 15 years, Germany has granted about $8
million per annum in research grants, while the annual expenditure of
Netherlands in these regards is $2.6 million. The UK government has
also acknowledged this cause and has spent nearly $4 million. The
European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods was
instituted in 1992 by the European Commission, and grants about $12.4
million annually. (Animal Experiments) Indicating that progress is
underway.
The most normal kinds of substitute strategies for animal testing
are: in-vitro tests, computer software, databases of tests already
performed and even ‘clinical trial’ experiments on humans. Application
of animal cells, organs, or tissue cultures is also believed to be a
substitute irrespective of the fact that animals are killed in order to
use their body parts. The particular tests are Eytex, Skintex, EpiPack,
Neutral Red Bioassay, Testskin, TOPKAT, Ames test and Agarose Diffusion
strategy. Presently, in-vitro in contradiction to in-vivo has advanced
as a result of progresses in tissue culture methods and other
analytical strategies. (Animal Testing Alternatives) The effective
substitution involves test tube studies on human tissue cultures,
statistics and computer models. People can substitute animals in some
kinds of research. Skin sensitivity experimentation of cosmetics for
example can draw on human volunteers. Human clinical studies and
epidemiological studies can find out a great deal about the strategies
of health and disease. The statistical design symbolizes one form of
reduction substitute. The cost effective statistical set of programs
that exists now a days enables researchers to receive the most out the
data formed by each animal they apply and therefore require a fewer
animals in aggregate. Researchers can also share animals in order to
reduce the number of killings. For example if a scientists needs to
study the brain of a rat, he can allow the other scientist to make use
of the kidneys, or livers or parts for there concerned studies.
Horst Spielmann of ZEBET of the German center for animal testing
substitutes has reviewed decades of industry data on pesticides. He
found out while mice and rats are reactionary to a chemical, it does
not have to experience further tests on dogs. Spielmann expects that
about 70% of tests on dogs can now be successfully avoided. There is a
common attempt by researchers to use lab animals that are less prone to
undergo the sensations of pain or discomfort. In Canada, many studies
have substituted mammals with fish and now researchers are even
attempting to apply bacteria in tests rather than the rats. Instead of
shaving the back of an anaesthetized rabbit to test a skin product, can
we use “Corrositex” a synthetic material for the same purpose. Similar
solutions ought to be devised for many other kinds of experiments that
presently use the animals.
Conclusion:
While there has been promise to find alternatives to animal testing,
the best researchers can do for now is try to reduce the number of
animals being used. They can resort to new scanning technologies like
magnetic Resonance Imaging, which can assist doctors to learn about
disease from human patients without the actual necessity for invasive
surgery, or animal experimentation. Computer models can be used to
devise the reaction of a drug to the animal, as a result it would
eliminate the necessity for live animal experimentations. (Animal
Experiments) The development to the extensive application of
substitutes to animal experimentation will persistently gain momentum
as people become more aware about the problem. Though it is hard to
eliminate animal testing completely, consumers can prevent the
unnecessary animal testing by boycotting certain products that don’t
necessary require animal testing. To conclude, all we has humans can do
now is to try to reduce the number of animals being harmed in these
experiments aimed at benefiting society.
|
|
|
(0 vote)