Substitute for Animal Testing - Case Study Example

Is there a substitute for Animal Testing' An argumentative essay Discipline' Is there a substitute for Animal Testing' Every day thousands of people worldwide are treated for dreadful diseases. We overlook the fact that this bliss of medical treatment has been made available after long term animal testing. Despite these overwhelming benefits, some people are against animal testing. Those opposed to the use of animal testing claim that it is atrocious and brutal to use animals in experiments. They believe that the outcomes of animal experiment are misleading and not pertinent to human as their physiology is different .Further, the stress that animals undergo; adversely affects the result of studies. While, some people are of opinion that animal experiments are acceptable if suffering is diminished and such human benefits are obtained which alternate methods could not provide. As long as our family and friends are healthy, it is hard for us to comprehend why animals are sacrificed in the name of medical research. It makes sense only when someone very close to us gets inflicted by a life threatening disease. At that point of time we do not hesitate to accept the same life saving medication that had been developed after exterminating a number of many animals. In my opinion it is not possible to develop drugs or execute important scientific investigations without animal research. 1. Most of the medical discoveries have come through animal testing. In the 1880s, Louis Pasteur demonstrated the germ theory of medicine by inducing anthrax in sheep (Mock & Fouet, 2001). In the 1890s, Ivan Pavlov described the classical conditioning theory in dogs (Windholz, 1987). In 1922 Insulin was isolated from dogs (Gorden, 1997) for the first time. Laika, the Russian dog, became the first animal to orbit the earth on November 3, 1957. The vaccines for leprosy and antibiotic treatment were discovered in 1970s by using armadillos (Walgate, 1981). This was followed by the birth of the first cloned mammal Dolly, (Wilmut.et al., 1997) the sheep in 1996.Thus it would not be wrong to state that the progress in medical science has occurred because of animal experimentation. Other breakthrough discoveries such as organ transplants, open heart surgery technique, in-vitro fertilization, effective insulin, cancer cure, HIV drugs, reproductive medicines, hormone replacement therapy, vaccines ('animal-testing-pros', n.d) for Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection, came to fruition after rigorous animal research. Animal testing has assisted in refining the technique of anesthesia and measuring blood pressure and pacemaker technology ('animal-testing-pros', n.d). There is enough evidence in support of successful animal testing but opponents of animal testing still claim that the results of animal testing can not be extrapolated to humans. Although, animals do not have the exact physiology as humans but are suitable enough to test the safety and efficacy of a substance. Moreover, animal experiments are also carried out to develop veterinary medicines. Research on animals has saved the lives of many dogs by the discovering the medication for 'Heart worm' ('animal-testing-pros', n.d). As a matter of fact, in order to make advances in the field of medicines, animal testing is a requisite. Restraining animal testing will diminish the scope of eliminating suffering and diseases both humans and animals. 2. The alternate methods are not acceptable enough to predict the fate of drugs in human body. Those against animal testing, advocate that the alternate methods of computer modeling and human cell cultures. However, computer models cannot predict the unknown variables that can occur while the drug is being tested in human. The cell cultures can only tell whether a molecule is efficacious or toxic at cellular level. The whole organism is so complex that a drug which was effective and nontoxic in-vitro may turn out to be ineffective or toxic when given to a human being (Singh, 2006). Drugs that are potent in cell cultures may not get absorbed, get degraded or may get converted into an inactive metabolite in the stomach or intestine after administration to a human being. On the contrary, a molecule that appears safe in cell culture may be transformed into toxic compound in the body and cause adverse events. In another instance, the drug which is safe in cell culture assay does not kill the patient but may interfere with immune system and impede antibodies formation or stop the nerve cells from firing. Use of cell culture is incapable to unravel the side effects like rashes, tumors, cardiac arrest, stroke etc. Therefore, during the development of a drug the in-vitro techniques are employed only to shortlist few molecules for testing in animal models where the safety and efficacy is confirmed. 3. Now animal testing is no more cruel and in humane. Strict legislative guidelines (Larry, 2004) protect all laboratory animals against cruelty and mistreatment. Ethics committee and regulatory bodies' stricty regulate all animal experiments. Before starting any experiment scientists seek approval from them. The research animals are well attended, properly fed, comfortably housed and nursed when sick. In most countries the principle of three Rs' (Flecknell ,2002): 'Reduction' of animal uses, 'Replacement' with alternate methods and 'Refinement' of the testing procedures to minimize or alleviate suffering and pain, guides the use of animals in research. Those against the use of animals for testing have been portraying a wrong picture of scientists as people who enjoy torturing and killing animals are lazy to discover alternate options and therefore only choose the simplest option of animal experimentation. Animal research is carried out because whenever it is are essential and not because someone likes killing animals. Alternate methods such as chemical, biochemical, biological and pharmacological assays are absolutely fine at early stages of drug development but in before human testing the drug must be tested on animals to ascertain its efficacy and safety. After the completion of experiments, animals are sacrificed quickly without giving them a chance to suffer. Majority of people world wide are non-vegetarian, and we cannot stop this practice of consuming meat, then why should we sympathize for a few who are being sacrificed for a noble cause' 4. There are many therapeutic areas where alternative methods are non existent. How can one study the brain related diseases, the efficacy of a new bone graft material, develop heart and kidney transplant without using animals' There are still no substitutes for testing new drugs for viral disease such HIV/AIDS, metabolic disease like diabetes, and genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis and hemophilia. Production and testing of vaccines can only be carried out on animals. Wouldn't it be unethical to produce vaccines in human' Studies on oral contraceptives, in- vitro fertilization, hormone replacement therapy are other therapeutic areas where animal experimentation cannot be ruled out. Thalidomide, a sedative was introduced in 1956. It was immediately accepted world wide and pregnant women used it to combat pregnancy related nausea. In 1961 thalidomide was linked with birth defects ('Standing up for science',n.d) and taken off from the market. About 15,000 children suffered deforming birth defects and many died because of it. The safety study of Thalidomide had not been tested on pregnant animals. Later, serious birth defects were observed when it was retested on pregnant animals. Proper animal testing would have prevented this tragedy. This example proves that there is no alternative to animal safety testing. In my opinion there is no alternate for establishing the efficacy and safety of new drugs except animal testing. The animals used in experiments are bred in the laboratory and have never been in the natural habitat. They are treated ethically and as humanly as possible and sacrificed without any suffering and pain. Those who argue against animal testing must be prepared to offer a better viable alternative that can immediately take over without delaying medical research. References 1. Mock M, Fouet A (2001). "Anthrax". Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55, 647-71. 2. Windholz, G (1987). "Pavlov as a psychologist. A reappraisal". Pavlov J Biol Sci .22 (3): 103-112. 3. Gorden ,P .(1997). "Non-insulin dependent diabetes--the past, present and future". Ann. Acad. Med. Singap. 26 (3), 326-330 4. Walgate, R. (1981). "Armadillos fight leprosy". Nature ,291 (5816), 527. 5. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KH (1997) "Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells" Nature . 385 (6619), 810-813. 6. Animal Testing Pros.Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html 7. Sonu S.S. (2006) Preclinical Pharmacokinetics: An Approach Towards Safer and Efficacious Drugs. Current Drug Metabolism 7, 165-182. 8. Larry. C (2004).What Animal Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford University Press, pp. 68-69. 9. Flecknell P (2002). "Replacement, reduction and refinement". ALTEX 19 (2): 73-8. 10. Standing up for science. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.pro-test.org.uk/action.php. Read More