Animal Test Should Be Stopped - Essay Example

Animal Test Should Be Stopped Introduction Animal testing is the procedure ensuring that the products tested for use are safe for human consumption. However, numerous animals suffer injuries and others die during the Testing procedure. It is for this reason why people should ban Animal Testing since animals too have a right to life (Alternative Test Method Project Milestones, 2010). While many people say that animal tests gives room for medicines to be formed that later help in individual life, there exist more examples where the developed medicines gave rise to horrible deaths on humans. For example, a case of a medicine development that results to 10,000 births with deformities hence functions against the expectations on humans. This is because animals have a different anatomy than humans, thus unsafe to try whichever drugs on them because they may not yield the same results to humans (Animal Testing, 2010). Carrying out tests on animals is an inhumane and cruel on a terrible level. It is against the regulation since blameless animals undergo so much throbbing and terror. I cannot believe that the government is allowing such practices, even though it is not right. Animals should be free to live as the creatures of God creation. They should be left to stay in their homes and natural habitats and cohabit in petite tiny gages all their lives as every creature posse’s feelings. Since the performance of the tests involves no painkiller, many animals go through severe pain (Davies, 1995). Some tests might even lead to permanent injury or death. Animals cannot articulate their own views, and if given the opportunity, they would reject the practice. To me, this is just the cruelest thing ever, what effect could this have on doctors if one of their colleagues put through to some tests. Moreover, the practice is extremely expensive. Animal testing can lead to death of animals, which is a lofty sufficient value already, but can also be economically destructive to the organizations carrying out the tests (Dixon, 2010). To my opinion, animal testing is not reliable. People and animals are different, by using a cosmetic ingredient or medicine, which is secure on the natural world, may be risky for people. For example, in the case of aspirin tablet, it is poisonous to mice and rats but not to individuals. There exists no vital link between human health and animal testing. It is risky and falsified to relate information retrieved from one group to a different one. As much as animals differ from people, their reactions also vary (Hauser, et al, 2006). Moreover, there are substitutes to animal tests. These includes, developing curtail cell explorations or using volunteering individuals instead of non-volunteering animals. If you were an animal, will you want to undergo some tests or die against your wish? Animals have rights too. Human beings are just another species of animals. Most of us would not accept the submission of over 100 million each year to tests they are not willing which may result to death. Animals are always non-willing creatures in the tests, which would successful  with alternative methods. Scientists can grow living tissues in test tubes and carry out new drugs tests on these. Computers programmes can be effective in showing how drugs will respond in the individual body. Even though, a few drugs yield similar results on people and animals, this does not mean that animals have to be samples in experiments when substitute methods are available (Monamy, 2010). Reasons for Banning Animal Testing activity are cruel and sometimes unscientific. Money spent on animal experimentation goes to a waste in many cases; owing to failure in obtaining precise outcome, at the outlay of the animals safety. The following are arguments aligned with animal testing that hold up the consideration of prohibiting this experimentation (Rollin, 1998). Brutal Practices Animals form a pliable target for beings, but still, it is not just to take unjustified benefit of their defenselessness. It should be clear that a mouse or a monkey would go through similar throbbing that beings would do if subjected to certain hurting measures. These animals do not get food, water and, sleep. In various circumstances, they undergo cruel treatment. For example, dogs under lock and key in chambers to experiment whether a given insecticide is secure for breathing by people. On many occasions, there is no use of anesthesia at the time of testing. This is due to a callous attitude towards the safety of animals and avoids the alteration of the test results (Sherry, 1994). However, just imagine that you are in a theatre with no anesthesia or stacked in a filthy cell since a famous person wants to experiment how your body responds to that given surroundings. If individuals take the initiative of being kindhearted towards some creatures that you will realize the somewhat pain these innocent animals have to bear during such experiments. Some countries, the likes of Netherlands New Zealand have forbidden the utilization of brilliant apes among other primates for experiments. (Thomas, 1995). Inaccurate Results Results obtained from the practice assist in checking whether a given sample of drug or cosmetic artifact would result to any reactions on people. The functioning mechanisms of human beings are different from those of animals. The extensive use of Aspirin is for the cure of pain, fever, inflammation, etc. in people. Conversely, this exact drug proves to be poisonous for rats. Most conducted experiments are on the natural world, which cannot be a dependable basis for foretelling results on people. This shows that, the rats or mice are not the right forms to hypothesize reactions in people, where as only monkeys and chimpanzees are because their close relation to humans. Many of us are not aware that drug-manufacturing companies are not answerable for side effects or illnesses ensuing from their vaccines or medicines; however, many lately tested drugs they proudly trade; do not yield-required results. The reactions of drugs like clioquinol and thalidomide are an indication to the allegations that drugs tested cannot form a basis of considerations on animals as well as secure for human consumption (Types of Animal Testing, 2010). Therefore, it is incorrect to rely on results of tests conducted on animals. In the case of the National Institute of Health (NIH), the majority of the vaccines experimented for (HIV/AIDS) that were successful in animal tests, were essentially futile in tests conducted on human beings consumption (Types of Animal Testing, 2010). Costly Affair Animal rearing specifically for testing needs a lot of venture on feeding. These animals must be given definite amounts of food, as per the requirements of what the experiments. They call for the provision of shelter for the period for which the experiments are on. Moreover, many of the incurred expenses are in coming up with a simulated surrounding for the tests and in carrying out the tests. In USA, John McCain, has termed animal testing practice as scientifically, ethically and financially wobble. The practices’ statistics disclose the spending of thousands of dollars each year costs the lives of several animals. There are Alternatives In todays world, there is the development of many alternatives to animal testing, which is one logical reason for the ban on animal testing. Tissue culture methods are a viable alternative to animal testing. Crash test dummies (test devices that mimic humans) have internal sensors, which are good for experimentation instead of torturing living animals. Creation of antibodies such as monoclonal ones with the aid of refined cells could be a good consideration. The use of tissue engineering techniques for culturing these cells can yield better results. There is a possibility of making a replica of the human resistance system i.e. Modular Immune in Vitro Constructs (MIMIC) so as to experiment whether a given vaccine is helpful or not. Russell and Burch first developed a 3-Rs system, which works under the principles of discovering substitutes to animal testing. It takes care of replacement, reduction and refinement (Vivisection Society, 2010). Conclusion The practice of animal testing has to come to a stop, bearing in mind that it is dangerous from the environmental, ethical and, economical approach. Making use of the available substitutes for animal testing is an improved option. Progress in treatment drugs is necessary, but not at the outlay of blameless lives. As it is said rightly by Mahatma Gandhi, "You can arbitrate a nations ethical development by how it takes care of its animals”. People’s actions, no matter how risk-free they may tend to be, have an immense effect on the surrounding. Even apparently unreceptive act of garbage dumping in rivers results to their blockage, which with time results into a permanent damage. The harm caused to surroundings due to this practice and abuse is past our thoughts. Animal testing, as shown by the mass media does not seem harmless. However, personnel in animal testing laboratories often hush up the underlying truth of this activity. In the current world, where scientific processes can present us with imitation outcome, avoiding this practice of animal testing can be successful to some degree. Owing to the complexity in tests, animal testing practices currently are much less throbbing for the involved animals. Nevertheless, the truth stands that animals do suffer in such activities as they subjected to pain and face difficulty in adapting to the various changes their body undergo when conducting experiments on them. References “Alternative Test Method Project Milestones. (2010)” National Toxicology Program. NICEATM-ICCVAM. 25 October 2010. Web. 4 November 2010. < http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/milestones.htm>. “Animal Testing 101. (2010).” PETA. PETA. 2010. Web. 19 October 2010. . Davies, B. (1995-Nov). “Understanding Animal Research in Labs” RDS. Online. AOL. Dixon, T. (2010-October). “Animal Experimentation.” International Debate Education Association. Creative Commons Attribution, 7 April 2009. Web. 31 October 2010.  .       Hauser, D., et al., ed. (2006).People, Property, or Pets? West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, Print. Monamy, V. (2010). Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues. Cambridge University Press, Print. Rollin, B. (1998).The Unheeded Cry. Iowa State University Press, Print. Sherry, J. (1994). Animal Rights: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, California: ABC- CLIO, Inc., Print Thomas, A. (1995 -October). “Animals in America” Discover Magazine 9. Who is Huntingdon Life Sciences?” Kinship Circle. Web. 31 October 2010.               < http://www.kinshipcircle.org/fact_sheets/WhoIsHLS.pdf>. “Types of Animal Testing. (2010).” American Anti-Vivisection Society. The American Anti- Vivisection Society. 2010. Web. 19 October 2010.  Read More