Animal TestingFor centuries, animals have been used in medical research. Since 1875, animalexperimentation has been an on going heated debate on whether experiments onanimals are ethical. At the very start, the movement against animal testingfocused mainly on the “inhumanity of hurting and killing living beings forexperimental discovery” (Achor 95). However, in these few decades,scientific invalidity was one of the focusing claims to object to vivisection,which is an “injurious use of animals in laboratories and classrooms,whether for experimentation, product testing, training, or demonstration” (Achor94-95).
Animals are innocent and they are not able to fight back for any meansof suffering. Therefore, animal testing should be banned due to the fact thatanimal experimentation does not benefit human health and it diverts attentionaway from reliable research methods. The abolition of vivisection is supportednot only by animal activists but also by “scientists, medical doctors,psychiatrists, nurses, veterinarians, and other medical professionals” (Achor95), who discredit the scientific merits of animal experimentation. In contrast,some conservative physicians advocate the use of animal research because theybelieve that “accidental discoveries will lead us to theadvances” (qtd. in Achor 95) and “they are reluctant to adoptalternative methodologies, such as tissue cultures, which would requireextensive re-training” (Bender 75). They believe that science cannotadvance without animal experimentation.Order now
Other than some”old-fashioned” physicians, animal breeders, animal dealers, andanimal food suppliers also oppose the termination of animal research becausethey will lose millions of dollars, which is supposed to be their profits. Animal research cannot guarantee the effects of drugs on human beings. Everyliving system differs from each other. Predicting the reaction of one species bystudying another species is not accurate at all. LaFoullette and Shanks depictedthe truth that “even the most common drug given to humans does not haveuniform effects in non-human animals” (26). Although mice and rats lookvery similar, their reaction upon certain drugs can be totally distinctive (Achor104).
Roy Kupsinel, M. D. once announced that “animal experimentationproduces a lot of misleading and confusing data which poses hazards to human health. For example, 4 million patients per year arehospitalized for side effects caused by ¡¥thoroughly tested’ drugs,and of those 50,000 die of the ¡¥cures,’ not the disease” (Achor104).
According to Davis, “aspirin causes birth defects in rats and mice,poisons cats, but does not affect horses” (qtd. in LaFoullette and Shanks26). A well-known example of the misleading animal testing which harms humanhealth is the thalidomide disaster. The box accompanying the thalidomide statedthat after substantial animal tests, this drug was confirmed to be safe.
However, birth defects were eventually caused if pregnant women had prescribed. This resulted in missing limbs in thousands of babies (Achor 104). In addition,there are many factors affecting the results obtained by animal experimentation,such as stress, age, diet, gender, isolation, and crowding (Dickinson 32). Thus,cases can be false positive or false negative.
Some drugs are toxic for humansbut healthy for animals; some are useful for human health but not in terms ofanimals (LaFoullette and Shanks 26). As a result, animal experimentation doesnot totally benefit for human health. Instead, they may harm human beings. Focuson animal research eliminates choices on other reliable research methods. Withthe recent objection of animal testing, more scientists started to pursue otherresearch methods. As we expected, the non-animal researches are superior toanimal research (Achor 102).
One significant example is the Ames test, whichexamines if materials are to be carcinogens or not. This test is performed by”introducing a suspected carcinogen to salmonella bacteria. If thesubstance causes genetic changes in salmonella bacteria, then the substance isvery likely carcinogenic” (Achor 102). This test takes a few days tocomplete. Mobil Oil Company adopted the Ames test to examine petroleum-basedproducts, and this only took them 48 hours and cost $600.
Comparing with animaltests that they previously used, Mobil Oil Company has saved up to $50,000, twoand a half years of time, and 30,000 animals which are supposed to be using inanimal testing (Achor 102). Instead of animal experimentation, some othersuccessful alternatives without killing animals include In-vitro studies,Mathematical models which predict novel results, and Physio-chemical studieswhich analyze the properties of drugs (Achor 102). As a result, scientistsshould adopt other reliable research methods rather than animal experimentation. Although a number of medical doctors and scientists do not support the use ofanimals in laboratories, animal experimentations are still taking place. Animalresearch does not benefit human health in some ways, but they contribute animportant role in medical science. For example, the polio vaccine, kidneytransplants, and heart surgery techniques have all been developed with the aidof animal research (Bender 60).
In spite of the fact that in a recent count, 60to 75 percent of animal experimentations are duplicating the previous studies,such as the effect of pain in combination with cocaine and other drugs, and thedrug dependence and “noxious” stimuli (qtd. in Achor 102). In otherwords, animal research does not provide as much fresh information as before. Therefore, scientists should spend more time on other research methods ratherthan sticking with this old method ¡V animal testing. As a result, themedical science field can obtain a new face and perhaps, may flourish in alarger extent.
Day by day, animals are suffering in laboratories by electricshock and ravages of syphilis. Nevertheless, they can do nothing to escape frommistreatment in laboratories because they are not able to fight back. Therefore,being humane, we should help them get rid of the useless suffering because theanimal tests they are involved in are not beneficial to human health and aredriving away attention to other research methods.