Animal Testing as an Unethical Practice - Essay Example

English Preface Animal research refers to the use of non-human species in medical research to estimate or evaluate the chemical toxicity or physiological effects of a drug before it is disseminated for human use. This is a medical research tradition that is rooted in the past and its fruits have been enjoyed and will continue to be enjoyed in the coming generations. The medical practitioners have credited this procedure due its cheapness, human-friendliness and its relative efficiency. However, criticism has emerged to raise concerns of animal cruelty and species extinction, and ineffectiveness of the process in providing a guarantee to human safety. The same government that recommended safety medical test using animals has now provided a contradictory law against animal use in the scientific experiments. Animal rights activists and ecologists have ganged up to protect the welfare of animals by all means. After experiencing the suffering of a frog during a dissection practice lesson in high school, the urge to re-evaluate the consequences of animal testing was unavoidable. The hypothesis of this paper is that animal testing is an unethical practice that should be replaced with alternative medical research procedures. Activists such as Abbot have commended the efforts of the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods that will liberate animals from their current burden. By taking a multi-point view, this essay aims at evaluating the pros and cons of animal testing from a neutral ground to expose in black and white the nature of this procedure. Consequently, the readers of this paper will experience an unbiased conclusion based on the real matters in the animal research practice. Animal Testing in Medical Research My concern for animal testing started right from my high school experience when the anatomy class was required, as part of the curriculum, to dissect a frog and analyze it. I could not figure out the reason for the excitement that the anatomy students displayed throughout the whole experience. I was keen to observe the discomfort of the frog during the dissection process and I realized that animals too, just like human beings, are sensitive to pain. When the entire process was complete, it was the happiness of every student to finally relieve the frog from this torture. Later, I came to learn that the procedure of dissecting a frog was conducted for every anatomy class, not only in my high school, but in most other institutions in the world. In addition, I learnt that animals have been used for a long time not only for dissection but also as test subjects for almost every medicine that human beings consume today. This experience of frog dissection in high school has a direct connection with the widespread practice of animal testing that has all along seen animals under experimentation. Although animal experimentation has its own benefits in the medical sector, it is a great source of animal suffering, which should also be a concern for any civilized nation. The complexity of this situation can only be resolved if various dimensions of this issue are carefully evaluated. Animal experimentation is a scientific procedure that has grown slowly but consistently since the evolution of scientific research. The underlying fact is that physiologists in the 17th century saw animal research as a new platform to advance the biological and medical knowledge. This scientific procedure emerged when the scientists identified unique similarity between the toxicology effects of drugs in both humans and animals. Rowan, a writer of the scientist magazine, points out that although the degree of the effects varied in the two species, scientists found that these differences were minimal and could not hinder the adoption of this procedure. Their concern was to find a testing method that would provide empirical and statistical evidence without subjecting human beings to any harm. The argument was that the human species have the highest priority when it comes to medical research. In these days, animal protection laws were not common and researchers did not have any opposition while conducting tests on animals like the situation is today. It is indisputable that scientific research has alleviated a lot of medical complications through the animal experimentation process. Diseases such as polio and diabetes have become curable and the threat that they possessed in the olden days have been completely neutralized. Animals such as rabbits and donkeys that have a similar reaction to drugs as human beings have become important experimentation tools to test various drugs before introducing them for community use. According to Abbot, a professor of UCSD, the ability of science to protect human beings not only from diseases but also from toxic drugs has been achieved through this procedure. In addition, harmless cosmetics have been developed and used across the whole world using the same procedures. Consequently, the achievements of this scientific process have made it a worthy practice. The supporters of animal experimentation have outlined various advantages that come along with this research framework. First, they have pointed out method is cheap and easy, and the results of this procedure are quite factual and can stand the test of time. The argument of these physiologists makes sense to some extent since the species that they use are naturally available and the process only involves the development of drugs and testing. The replication of the symptoms obtained from tests with animals in human beings has proved that these methods provide factual results. Rowan points out that cruelty to animals is reduced during the testing process and hence the procedures have been pruned to achieve animal friendly techniques of testing. The proponents of this medical process have argued that it would be crueler if these procedures were used on human beings as many would have died or received permanent disabilities in the process. Currently, statistics have shown that millions of animals are put under isolation every year for scientific study purposes and the tallies continue to increase each and every year. Animals that suffer from this practice include rabbits, mice, monkeys, chimpanzees, cats and dogs which are believed to have a medical reaction that is similar to that of human beings. The increase in the number of animals that are encaged for animal testing has raised an alarm to ecologists who have foreseen signs of species extinction if this kind of medical practice persists. In reaction, these ecologists have asserted that there is an urgent need to establishment alternative test procedures if there are any chances of survival for the target species. Animal experimentation has become a public issue that has attracted a lot of attention from popular public magazines such as the Scientist Magazine. As the writer of this magazine states, criticism of animal experimentation as a resource bank for medical research rose a little after this procedure was launched commercially in the medical field. Animal testing became a common practice when the US Congress imposed a law that demanded that drug selling companies conduct safety tests using animals before releasing their drugs for human use. On the same century, movements such as American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to animals (ASPCA) and the American Antivivisection society were started to defend animal rights. The critics of this practice argued that the action was cruel and violated the animal rights, which was against the concepts of civilization that were being hammered by the American Congress during that time. From this point of view, animal testing has been a popular cultural topic, with majority of the people supporting its abolishment. Although philosophical approaches to animal testing have indicated mixed reactions, it is clear that most scholars have supported abolishment of this procedure. For instance, Abbot (144) pointed out various weaknesses that the medical practice has continued to ignore over time now while using animals species in research. Like many other philosophers, Abbot believes that better scientific research is achievable if only the current trend of animal research is completely put to a halt. To him, these procedures are no longer a guarantee to the safety of the people who use cosmetics and even medicine that has been animal-tested. The validation process of the medical tests is corrupted and inconsistent results cannot be a ground for effective treatment. For instance, a medical research proved that cortisone affects all other animals apart from human beings during their pregnancy period. This means that the test of such a chemical on animals is likely to provide incorrect results and the consequences may be felt in the vast population. It is this inconsistency of human and animal reactions to drugs that provide a new face of animal examination as an effort of assuring human safety. Abbot (145) also points out to the severity of the ethical issues that have come up since the time this practice was introduced in the medical research laboratories. First, too many animals lose their life during the process of experimentation which is unethical in accordance with the animal rights protection policies. For instance, while testing for cancer effects in drugs, well over 400 rats are subjected to five year test and the results obtained achieve 50% positive results and only 10% of these results are reliable in the prediction of potential for cancer. In black and white, it is clear that the procedures consume too much time and resources yet the results cannot be validated after the burdensome process. He points out that it is not right to violate animal rights only to obtain irreproducible results that cannot be regarded as medical evidence in treatment. Moreover, this testing has provided a false treatment procedure since human beings still experience adverse effects such as cancer after use of the so tested drugs. From a neutral ground, it is true that experience has proved that the medical research process has not been perfect in spite of these procedures threatening to wipe out rare animal species. Recently, there has been a great concern to develop alternative procedures to replace the animal testing methods with more effective and reproducible procedure. In Europe, for instance, the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) has launched a new campaign to reduce the number of animals that are used in the testing process in order to start the war against animal use of medical research. By introducing in vitro test, ECVAM has managed to reduce the number of animals being used for a test from 150 in 1974 to 8 in 2002. Use of cultured human cells for toxicity test has become a new strategy to terminate animal based medical research, which is a new hope for the freedom of animals. The stand of this article is that animal testing should be abolished and be replaced with more efficient and animal friendly methods. The dark side of this practice seems to be not only a hindrance for scientific development but also an oppressive, and whose end results can be achieved through alternative routes in medical practice. The heightened tension between the critics and the proponents of animal testing seems to be growing each day and the unrelenting effort of the critics seems to be materializing, which would see animal experimentation come to an end. In conclusion, animal research has formed a platform for advanced medical research for a long time now and the benefits that have come along with it have become the basis for human comfort in the present world. However, researchers have criticized this practice on the ground that it is not only an ineffective practice, but also threat to ecological equilibrium. After experiencing the frog dissection procedure in high school, I realized the need to protect animals by freeing them from this kind of painful testing. It is not surprising that this practice won both support and criticism at the same time it was established. It has become a dilemma to determine whether the animal rights or the human rights, or both need to be protected. The answer to this answer seems to be taking ground as a drift is lowly taking medical research away from animal tests to more applicable tests. Technology has proven beyond any doubt that animal test is not the ultimate solution to medical problems, and that better results are achievable. In my opinion, animal testing is an obsolete practice and it’s the high time medical professionals should engage in more viable research to abolish this practice and satisfy the demands of the society that this practice be put to a halt. Works Cited Abbot, A. Animal Research: More Than a Cosmetic Changed. Nature Publishing Group.438, 144-146. 2005. Accessed from: < http://ethics.ucsd.edu/journal/2006/readings /Animal_ Testing_More_ than_a_cosmetic_change.pdf> [Accessed on 2nd Aug, 2013] Rowan, A. Avoiding Animal Testing: Advances in Cell culture technologies are paving way For Complete Elimination of Animals from the Laboratory. The Scientist magazine. 2011. Accessed from :< http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo /31401/ title/Avoiding-Animal-Testing/ > [Accessed on 2nd Aug, 2013] Read More