Unnecessary Evil: Animal Testing - Essay Example

?Erika Stueve Woodard English 201 June 19, Unnecessary Evil The world we live in relies heavily on animal testing for most cosmetic and food products. They are the creatures upon whom the human experiments make these things safer for us to use. These animals allow the testing to be done to them simply because they do not know any better. Their lives are in our hands and we do not seem to care as a society whether they live or die as long as we get what we want from them. That is why there are organizations such as the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) that help to reduce or eliminate the effects of animal testing by educating researchers, physicians, and government leaders as to alternative testing methods that do not require the use of animals. This paper will serve to look into the reasons as to why animal testing should not be tolerated and should be banned altogether from use in our highly advanced 21st century society of animal rights activists. According to NAVS, the reason that animals became the de-facto choice for testing of human products was really quite simple, the animal body closely resembled that of humans. For the early scientific community, that was the only criteria they needed in order to justify animal testing. The first documented use of animal experimentation dates back to the 4th century. But our modern society no longer has a need to use animal testing now that we understand the human and animal body a lot better than our ancestors ever did. Many doctors agree animal experimentation should be taken with a grain of salt, because it is outdated, inaccurate, and an unnecessary evil needing to come to an end. Fergie Woods M.D. states, “Animals tend to react differently than humans to drugs, vaccines, and experiments which can consequently be very harmful to humans’ health.” A clear example of the huge difference in results between animal and human testing can be seen in the conflicting results of Thalidomide testing during the 1960's and 1970's. Although the sedative had no visible and long term effect on the animals it was tested upon, it caused massive physical damage upon the human babies whose mother's were unlucky enough to have taken the drug during the pregnancy. Of the mothers who had taken Thalidomide, at least ten thousand children were born throughout the world with severe deformities (Woods). Then there is also the Digitalis case wherein the dogs who took the drug were found to have elevated levels of blood pressure. However, the drug did not have the same effect during human testing. Rather, the drug helped to lower the human heart rate whenever necessary. Another example of the inconsistency between human and animal reaction is digitalis, a drug which can be credited in saving countless cardiac patients’ lives by lowering their heart rate. When digitalis was tested on dogs, it raised their blood pressure to dangerously high levels (Woods). NAVS members point out in a study Mark Levin, Ph.D. presented results regarding the inaccuracy of animal models in drug testing. Levin found that in twenty-eight new drugs tested for liver toxicity in rats, seventeen were shown to be safe. Of the drugs cleared during testing, eight proved to be safe for human use and six were found to be toxic to humans. In another study, spanning over ten years, the FDA found out of one hundred and ninety-eight new medications developed, one hundred and two were either recalled or had side effects not predicted in animal tests (NAVS). Since the results of animal testing these days no longer confirm the same effects to be probable in humans, the need to test drugs and other medical related items on animals has become an archaic and moot point. It no longer serves in man's best interests. “Experimenting on animals in order to understand the drug or disease response in humans is an archaic and scientifically invalid research method”, states NAVS. Animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) argue that the cruelty animals endure during experiments is inhumane and needs to be stopped. PETA representatives note that, “Most animals used for research spend their entire lives in misery, isolation, and deprivation. Laws allow animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, drowned, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged all in the name of science.” In order to learn more about diseases, scientists make mice grow tumors as large as their bodies, blind kittens, inflict seizures on rats, and perform multiple procedures on primates implanting wires in their brains. In addition, animals are forced to inhale toxic fumes, and have corrosive chemicals rubbed onto their skin and eyes, causing open wounds susceptible to infection. Animals are also used as subjects for the testing of side effects and potency of pesticides. As part of this testing they receive well over the lethal amount and inevitably are killed (PETA). Millions of animals worldwide suffer and die every year in cruel chemical, drug, and food tests. They are subjects for biology lessons, dissections, medical training exercises, and curiosity-driven medical experiments. In the United States alone, 1.3 million animals were used for experimentation and of those seventy-six thousand were subjected to pain without pain relief medication (PETA). Science correspondent Ian Sample states, “Of the animals experimented on, eighty-three percent were performed on mice, rats, and other rodents, ten percent on monkeys and other primates, nine percent on fish, and four percent on birds. Procedures on cats, dogs, horses, and other non-human primates were less than one percent.” It is the belief of PETA as an organization that, “The majority of animal experiments fail to lead to medical advances in human health, and often can be dangerously misleading. Alternatives to animal experimentation are both efficient and reliable options, instead of using inhumane methods.” Modern scientific technology has made it possible for our scientists to conduct the same life threatening experiments on virtual models, thus saving the lives of countless creatures. Through the use of technology scientists have been able to develop sophisticated and accurate tests using in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques to process new drugs. In vitro are cell and tissue cultures used to test pharmaceutical products, vaccines, and therapeutic proteins. Computer-modeling simulates diseases at early stages so the disease can be monitored in hope of discovering potential treatments. Rather than infecting rodents and other animals, computers show how diseases develop in humans. Human skin models are used to test chemicals and other skin products, replacing skin corrosion studies in rabbits (PETA). Bertrand Russell, British philosopher for NAVS explains that, “Eliminating animals in science will bring about many apparent benefits including: cures for diseases will be discovered sooner, animals will not be tortured, education will be better, and drugs will be cheaper.” Animal rights advocates claim misleading results are developing during experimentation because animals react differently to drugs than humans. Performing tests on animals is a cruel practice, and new alternatives are in place so animal suffering in labs can be prevented in order to bring animal experimentation to an end (NAVS). Studies have provided evidence which supports the need for change in the use of animals for research due to inaccuracy and unethical practices, strengthening the reason to push science away from using animals for experimentation. For all the similarities that exist between the human anatomy and the animal counterpart, the reality of the situation is that the chemical components that make up the human system is still vastly different than that of the animals. Therefore, it does not make sense to continue to experiment on the animals who suffer in order to make the drugs that we use safer. There is no assurance that animal testing will produce accurate results. Works Cited Amin, Haris. "Animal Testing: Is Animal Testing Ethically Incorrect." 2010. HubPages. 12 June 2013 . Arie Brecher, M.D. "The Scientific Argument Against Animal Testing ." Stop White Coat Welfare Because Humanes and Animals Benefit Together. 11 June 2013 . National Anti-Vivisection Society. "Animals in Scientific Research." 2004. NAVS. 12 June 2013 . PETA Members. "Animals Used For Experimentation." PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. 11 June 2013 . Sample, Ian. "Law failing animals used in medical research, says scientist who advised on guidelines." 24 July 2007. Guardian. 11 June 2013 . Stubblefield, Heaven. "The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing." 24 August 2009. EduBook. 12 June 2013 . Read More