Testing on Animals - Essay Example

Testing on Animals Introduction Animal testing is the use of animals (non-human) in scientific experiments. It would be of great importance to note from the onset that animal testing does not necessarily mean that the animal has to be killed. Some forms of animal testing only involve the observation of animal behaviors. Animal testing is sometimes referred to as animal research, animal experimentation or in-vivo testing. Animal testing is mainly carried out in medical schools, research institutes and hospital labs. The testing entails two main categories; the pure research and the applied research. The pure research has only the elements of genetics, behavioral and developmental biology. On the other hand, applied research majorly involves biomedical and drug testing (Conn et al, 2008). Over the years, the non-human animals of different species have been used by researchers in laboratories to establish the root causes of various human health complications and diseases. The testing has also been instrumental in scientific education, especially when illustrating some biological processes such as respiration. As more and new human diseases continue to emerge, pharmaceutical firms have continued to manufacture new drugs that are appropriate for the treatment of such diseases. The new drugs, therefore, must pass a test before they are declared safe for human health; the animal testing. Animal testing, therefore, has been very helpful in determining the effectiveness and safety of any medicine that is intended for treating of human diseases. Some large research institutes and pharmaceutical firms purposefully breed the non-human animals for the sake of the animal testing whiles others prefer capturing the animals from the wild. The commonly used animals during testing include rats, mice, rabbit, fish, monkeys, cats, dogs and birds. Animal testing has, for many years, led to the discovery of many medical treatment of various diseases; both in human and in other animals. Those who are for the testing say that animal testing is such a big remedy for health complications, and thus, should not face many stringent laws from the government. However, there are those who are against the popular animal testing. These oppose claim that the animals, though living in the wild, have rights too. These two categories of advocators have put the scientific world on a heated debate that does not seem to come to an end soon. In the 20th Century, the science of animal testing led to the many amazing discovery of medical treatments and advances that aided the treatment of deadly diseases such cancer. In the world of today, animal testing is still being used by various research institutes in the attempt to understand the complexity of certain antigens and find cure for the menacing diseases such as AIDS and Alzheimer. Animal testing is not only common in the United States of America but also in the rest of the world. In most countries, if not all, scientists have adopted the use of the non-human animals whenever they want to understand any phenomenon of the human health. All schools in the world use small animals such as insects during biology lessons so as to demonstrate and understand biological mechanisms. Due to the increase in the animal testing, animal populations have reduced and some species have become extinct. In all these nations, there are organizations that advocate for the animal rights and they closely collaborate with the local governments to design laws that regulate the use of animals in the lab. The government, therefore, has moved to set some rules that govern the use of the non-human animals for scientific reasons. However, these rules vary in degree depending on a particular country. Thus, some countries might have enacted more strict laws than others. History and Advances in Animal Testing The history of Animal Testing dates back to 322BC when famous scientists like Aristotle and Galen first performed dissection and vivisection on pigs and goats in carrying out their biological experiments. Galen, for instance, was the first scientist to perform dissection on the guinea pigs. He is, therefore, known as the father of vivisection. In these early years, many nations had not thought of setting strict regulations on the use of animals. Besides, there was nothing like animal rights. The scientists, therefore, had all the freedom to manipulate the animals as they wished; both domestic and wild. This led to a series of scientific researches, some of which led to the ultimate discovery of very effective medicines such as penicillin (Guerrini, 2003). In the 12th Century, a scientist by the name Avenzoar, who had also been practicing vivisection alongside Galen, introduced the idea of animal testing as an ideal experiment to test different surgical methods before they could be applied on human beings (Rabie, 2005). These tests were performed on rats, mice and some, on horses. Many ancient scientists followed this idea and started to experiment other medical methods using the non human animals. In the year 1660, the famous scientist called Boyle used animals of different species including insects and birds to perform an experiment on air pressure. In the course of this experiment, one of the birds that were being used by Boyle caught cold since he had put in water. It shivered and convulsed before it eventually died in a very miserable state. It was from this scene that the inhumane nature of animal testing started to exhibit itself. However, Boyle and his fellow scientists could not notice the fateful death of this species. All they were interested in was the result of the experiment. In the 18th century, Lavoisier, another dynamic scientist, did an experiment on the process of respiration in human beings using the guinea pigs. In order to achieve the goals of this experiment, Lavoisier had to confine these guinea pigs in a very small calorimeter. This was yet another form of animal cruelty and insensitivity displayed by the researchers. In the very century, Hales Stephen demonstrated the measurement of blood pressure using a horse. In 1782, the famous Galvani Luigi had to literally kill a frog in order to use it in an experiment to illustrate the effect of electricity on the legs of a dead a frog. Although he succeeded in confirming that the legs were twitching at the shock of electricity, the killing of the frog was cruelty. 1n the year 1880, the well known scientist Louis Pasteur, in an attempt to illustrate the germ cell theory, took a sample of the deadly anthrax and administered it in a sheep. The sheep died a few days later. A decade later, Pavlov had to use dogs in a conditional reflex experiment. The dogs were denied their rights of movement as they had been confined in a room for several days and only fed at Pavlov’s mercies. Some of these ancient animal experimentations had established a firm framework upon which the scientists of today build their findings and had also led to the discovery of lasting cure for many diseases. However, these experiments also paved way for the present animal testing that has led to the abuse of many wild animals by the many scientists and science students. The Importance of Animal Testing According to the Foundation for Biomedical Research, animal testing has played the biggest role in almost all the advances made in medicine. These advances include the treatment and management of blood pressure (an experiment that was done by Stephen Hales in the 18th Century), blood transfusion, vaccination, joint replacement, chemotherapy and many more ailments. Charles Darwin and his discovery of penicillin bore the idea of vaccination. The penicillin was first used in the mice and yielded a positive result. Today, children must be vaccinated in order to avoid many childhood diseases such as measles, Small pox, Chicken pox, Diphtheria, Whooping cough and Polio. Many children who do not receive vaccinations at the right time end up losing their lives at infancy. Chemotherapy is usually carried out on the cancer patients. Chemotherapy has been the leading therapy for most forms of cancer and it has helped many patients cope well with their conditions. This therapy had to be performed on a non-human first to verify its effectiveness and the side effects. The very adverse effects of chemotherapy had been seen in the non-human animals and the therapy was, therefore, adjusted to minimize such effects. The knowledge and results obtained from the animal testing, therefore, has generally been used to find panaceas for various human health conditions. Without animal testing, the mortality rate in all the nations of the world would have so high. Even simple diseases such as flu would just kill people since there would have been no established cure for such. The animal testing has, thus, been performed round the clock in order to retain the optimum population of the world. The researchers argue that the animal testing only benefit the human beings as it has been theorized by many. It finds medical solutions for the animals too. The testing has led to and still leads to the many advances that have been made in veterinary. Thus, through the animal testing, treatment of different animal diseases such anthrax, tuberculosis and many other parasitic diseases has been very easy. Even though Louis Pasteur had to give that sheep anthrax, the pro animal testing argue, he did it for the good of the future generation of sheep (Guerrini, 2003). Through the non-human animal testing, the human dignity and respect has been retained. If it were not for the wild animals, the scientists say, human beings would have to be frequently taken to the laboratory and exposed to very adverse and embarrassing conditions to have the trial experiments performed on them. Many people would also die in the course of such experiments. In some cases, the specimen has to be injected with the antigen before the drug is tested on it. If the drug did not work, that person would remain with that disease in his body system and he would eventually die. Human beings, like it is done to other non-human animals, would be confined in restrictive environs to have their behaviors observed. Such circumstances would rob the humans of their dignity and respect. Going by this argument, no human would offer themselves for such experiments that lasted for days. It implies that no cure would have been found for the many human diseases. Therefore, due to their sizes and their capability to persevere severe sufferings, the researchers found the non-human animals very convenient, and thus, took advantage of their nature. Most animals, especially the primates such as monkeys, have similar genes and DNA with human beings. They, therefore, serve as the real representatives of the human beings. Any effect of the drug seen on them shall be seen on man. Alternatives for Animal Testing As aforementioned, animals have been denied their rights to live and their privacy has been tampered with by the intruding daily scientific researches. Countries are losing their heritage in the cruel hands of science. Therefore, the scientific researchers should make a quick effort to utilize the already existing animal alternatives and even find more reliable alternatives. Animal alternatives such as the in-vitro, genomic and the computer modeling techniques have always existed for years yet the scientist have failed to improve these modern technologies and use them in place of the non-human animals. These alternatives were put in place to ensure that the animals receive as little pain as possible during the scientific research. The main objective, however, was to regulate the use of animals in such experiments such that a scientist could only use an animal when he proves that it is actually necessary to use that animal. Among the guiding principles in the alternatives is the Replacement. It demands that a scientist must try hard and see if he can replace the animals with an alternative method before he performs an experiment. The replacement can either be relative or absolute. In relative replacement, only a portion of the animal is cut and used as cells or tissue. In Physiology experiments, Tissue culture is a good example of relative replacement. However, relative replace still requires that at least one animal of a given species must be killed and its tissue be used in an experiment. If the animal does not die, it usually left with deep cuts that take time to heal. If the tissue used in an experiment was obtained from human being, then the replacement becomes Absolute. In Positron Emission Tomography, a medical practitioner can easily scan the brain of human being in vivo without having to use a non-human animal. In Comparative Epidemiology, a researcher can just study the disease risk factors in any human population without involving other animals. These are some of the adjustments that have been made by the medical department in a bid to reconcile with the animal rights stipulated by the animal welfare organizations. However, these two alternative methods have been out of date for a long time and are doing very little for the safety and rights of the non-human animals. These methods should be revisited and improved for the betterment of the animal health. These alternatives and replacements, if effectively implemented, can be of great benefit, both to the animals and to the human beings. The methods such as computer modeling technique are beneficial to the animals since it preserves their right by sparing their lives. It is an advantage to man by preventing the careless disposal of harmful chemicals to the environment through the killed animals. Computer modeling technique is another form of absolute replacement since no non-human tissue is used at all. However, most scientists argue that the computer modeling, though modern and complex, cannot be used to holistically understand the complexity of the human body system. They claim that human beings have very complex biology in their DNA chemicals that the computer cannot solve; only animals can. The truth behind this argument has not been established. It, thus, remains a factual statement. Genomics is a genetics study that involves the analysis of the DNA sequence and assemblage to understand the complex nature of the human brain. Scientists can use this study as an alternative for the non-human experiments (Woodruff, 1996). It is apparent that the scientists have avoided the new technology and have their eyes on the animals as the sole experimental objects. Discussions Although animal testing is seen to be having a lot of benefits as discussed above, many individuals and organizations have come out and term the testing as cruelty to the mute and innocent animals. However, the lead researchers claim that those opposing the animal testing only do so because they have been healthy and have never suffered any deadly disease in their lives. According to these scientists, the opposition would not be there if the individuals had gone through any complicated health condition; they would appreciate by being silent. However, it is an inevitable fact that during such experimentations, the non-human animals that are used as the specimens usually go through a lot of pain and suffering at the expense of human health and longevity. In some cases, these animals are not given any painkillers or sedatives during the experiments that last for hours or even days. The scientists, as learned as they are, usually fail to acknowledge the universal nature of living beings’ nervous system and understand that these animals also sense pain, just like human beings. In the course of the experiment and after the experiments, some animals pick permanent injuries that lead to their death. Many animals have lost their lives through these many experiments and no one has been held accountable. This is an ongoing act that started several years back with the death of the bird that Boyle was using for the pressure experiment. Louis Pasteur also intentionally injected a sheep with anthrax in the name of science experiment. All these acts against animals are inhuman and cruelty of the highest degree. The animal testing has, therefore, painted a very bad picture of the practice of medicine; it all cruelty. Based on the first interview the interviewee emphasizes the fact that animals, just like humans are intelligent and they also experience feelings like pain, fear and joy. It is, therefore, important to treat animals in a humane manner, even when using them in research. Despite the fact that medical advances are expected to improve, it is imperative to note that from a scientific perspective, a cat liver cannot metabolize paracetamol and that is why human livers are better for predicting human toxicity than animals. This clearly shows that testing on animals will only inflict the pain and not achieve the intended results. Laws that have been set have not been changed and that is why many organizations are still testing on animals. However, the interviewee clearly states that the government should strive to change these laws and stop testing on animals. Although animal testing has provided many solutions to a number of human health problems, it has led to the death of thousands of animals that are sacrificed in this manner. Animal population in the wild is gradually reducing; animal testing accounts for this. Some of these animals in the wild serve as the heritage of a country and attracts many tourists. The reduction in their population and their extinction may lead to the reduction of tourist visiting such countries. This can be a big blow to the economies that rely on tourism as the core source of revenue. Ironically, the government has not been sensitive enough to the animal rights. Despite the threats posed by these tests, governments still rush to issue licenses to such practices. Presently, there are laws in the USA that allow the researchers to burn, isolate, shock or even poison the non- human animals during the experiment. As it stands now, over 25 million animals are used every year in the continuous scientific researches (Carbone, 2004). The scientific researchers must understand that the non-human animals are not owned by them. These animals also have independent lives to live. They should not be taken as disposable commodities and the objects of the many distressing scientific experiments. The scientists have taken the advantage of the suffering capability of these animals and are now abusing this advantage. Other than the violation of the animal rights, another controversy with the animal testing is that not all the tests that are successful in the non-human animals will work in the human being. For instance, in the year 2006, almost 92% of all the tests that were successful in the non-human animals failed to work in the human beings. From this finding, any sane mind will see that there is, therefore, no need of unnecessarily killing the animals if most of the tests fail to work in man. It can quickly be concluded that animal testing is a reliable method for human treatment. Scientists must come out and explain to the public why and how such a huge percentage of the test could fail yet they had killed over 25 million animals. As stated in the second interview people and the government have a huge role to play on dealing with the issue of animal testing. For instance, people should be educated on the harm they cause to animals for testing on them. Therefore, laws on the issue should be amended to make sure that animals are no longer used for experiments. Additionally, the second interviewee states that the government should formulate policies opposed to animal testing. Conclusion Although the animal testing has for many years led to the discovery of various cures to both human and animal diseases, the animal rights have been overlooked by the researchers. The animals have been subjected to harsh conditions and pain that lead to their eventual deaths. The government has created laws with loopholes that allow the scientist to violate the animal rights. The scientists have been very conservative in following the scientific procedures that established many centuries ago and ignoring the new technological alternatives. Besides, most of these animal researches have not been successful when applied to human beings. Recommendations The researchers of the present day should be flexible and technology-oriented in their various experiments so as not to abuse the rights of the non-human animals. Animals should not be used for testing. Above all, traditional methods of finding cure through animal experimentation should be abolished and, new and very effective methods be adopted. If the animal testing has to continue, then governments of all the nations worldwide must formulate very stringent laws that regulate the maximum number of animals to be used and the strict procedures to be followed during Animal Testing. In the process of the inscription of such laws, Animal Rights Organizations must participate and their views should be treated with respect. The law breakers should be penalized accordingly. Reference Carbone L. (2004). What Animals Want. Oxford University Press. London. Conn P., & James, V. (2008). The Animal Research War. Macmillan. Palgrave. Guerrini, A. (2003). Experimenting with Humans and Animals: From Galen to Animal Rights. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore Moore F. (1964). Give and Take: The Development of Tissue Transplantation. New York, NY: Saunders. Perutz M. (1989). Is Science Necessary. Dutton: Penguin Inc. Rabie E. (2005). Contributions of Avenzoar to the progress of surgery: A study and translation from his book Al-Taisir. Saudi Med Journal, 26(9). Woodruff H. (1996). Discoveries in Pharmacology. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Appendices Primary Sources Interview 1 An interview on a veterinarian opposed to Testing on Animals Interviewer: You have campaigned against testing on animals for almost twenty years. What initially motivated you to start such a campaign? John: As a veterinary, I came across many materials that talk about animal experimentation. This was the trigger since I came to learn about the pain which animals go through during such occurrences. On the other hand, my objection is also based on the moral standing. However, the moral aspect is not enough and that is why I strive to find scientific reasons that shows animals are not a good model for measuring toxicity and that animal testing has a bad representation to science. Interviewer: Why do you think animals are not a god model for measuring the level of toxins? John: Toxicity is usually measured from a perspective of liver functionality. From a scientific perspective, a cat liver cannot metabolize paracetamol and that is why human livers are better for predicting human toxicity than animals. This automatically shows that testing on animals will only inflict the pain in them without necessarily getting the intended results. Interviewer: Many scientists are still testing on animals. In your opinion is this a legal requirement? John: Animal tests are usually conducted more because of legal reasons compared to scientific ones. These legal requirements have existed for more than fifty years. Despite new innovations in the scientific world, the legal aspect has not changed. This means there is need to change the existing laws in order to change this cruel method of testing on animals. Interviewer: Finally, what would you identify as a huge hindrance to people opposed to animal testing? John: In the present world ignorance s one of the major hindrance. Many people including the government are not aware of the torture that animals go through during testing. The challenge is therefore, communicating to people that animal testing is wrong. Interview 2 The second interview with as CEO of Animal Liberation Group Interviewer: In your opinion, what do you think animal testing entails? Alex: I believe animal testing is done either for scientific advancement or testing the safety of a product. This is extremely wrong because, this ends up causing the death of the animal and it makes me wonder how data gotten from these tests can be considered useful while causing pain and unplanned deaths on animals. Interviewer: what do you think has caused animal testing to be rampant in the public? Alex: It is evident that many people are still testing on animals. I believe that people are being misled by information in magazines, the web and other sources of information. Nevertheless, I believe with the right kind of persistence, people will start listening and change for the better. Interviewer: What do you think should be changed or done to end animal testing? Alex: People need to be educated on the harm cause to animals for testing on them. This way, laws on the issue will be amended to make sure that animals are no longer used for experiments. Interviewer: Finally, do you think the government should be involved in stopping animal testing? Alex: In my opinion, the government has the mandate to change the existing laws. It is imperative that policies that are opposed to animal testing should be formulated. Read More