The Animal Usage in Scientific Experiments - Term Paper Example

College: Scientific Animal Research and Controversies Scientific animal research is the use of any other animal other than humans for experimental purposes. It involves observation, extraction of some cells from animals, and even induction of foreign material into their bodies. It may also include application of substances on the animal in order to make observations on potential reactions. Both vertebrates and invertebrates are used. However, invertebrate use is discouraged since they have fewer traits that compare to humans. Mice and rats are used widely due to their small size, quick reproduction period and affordability. This is in the research of cancer and genetic manipulation. They also have a ninety nine percent match genetically to humans. Cat use is mainly for neurological research while dogs are used in cardiology and joint structures. Invertebrates such as fish and worms are advantageous due to their short lifecycle (Abbott 144-145). In the previous century, a significant amount of medical experiments resulted from the use of animal experiments. This has sparked contention, with proponents of animal use in scientific research arguing that the positive effects outweigh the negative, while opponents argue the opposite. This paper seeks to show that the advantages of using animals for scientific research are more than disadvantages, especially if the proper ethical guidelines are followed to the letter. One of the most significant advantages supporting scientific research using animals is the fact that, it leads to the invention of fundamental medical solutions. For instance, the germ theory emerged by use of anthrax introduction to sheep. Further, in the treatment of diabetes, insulin was isolated from a dog, which led to the discovery of its treatment. Hormone discovery emerged from the use of dog experiments by Bayliss. This would have been impossible had scientists not experimented on animals. Animal based scientific study is also the best choice amongst known research alternatives. For example, although computers are known to be amongst the most intelligent of machines, they have not been able to fit in as alternatives which could operate on their own. This is due to their inability to function as live organs in living things as well as their inability to model the interaction between inner and outer environments. The use of rodents such as the rat reflects a ninety nine percent match to human genes. The results obtained from the experiments match what would happen in a human being, only with a difference of little magnitude (Abbott 146). Further scientific research on animals is advantageous since it plays a significant role in advancing genetic and biological knowledge. In genetics, animals benefit from the experiments. This is evident from the fact that, genetic modifications make it possible for the improvement of animals; in the sense that they receive valuable traits for adaptation to their environments. They are also improved in terms of productivity. In addition, genetics research also assists in the advancement of tissue repair, which is useful to patients suffering from major injuries that necessitate reconstruction. According to scientists, animals lack consciousness thus do not suffer as much as pain as humans. This means that experiential research on animals is more feasible than subjecting humans to the same form of research. Additionally, not only live animals are used in research, but also dead ones. Scientists also inject the research animals with anesthesia, thus relieving them of pain. This means that, in most experiments only momentary pain is caused. Statistics show that only 7% of animals used in 2006 for experiments suffered intense pain incapable of being relieved (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2-5). It would be misleading to disregard the other side of the debate, which presents the cons of experimental research on animals. For instance, harming animals for the benefit of humans appears to be ethically cruel. The use of animals involves vivisection procedures, involving the cutting of the animal’s skin and dissection procedures. This causes pain and scarring to the animal. The pain may result to unnatural behaviors, thus rendering the results inaccurate. Toxicology tests may also be very cruel to animals, where toxicity levels are high (Abbott 145). Another con emphasized by animal rights activists is that there is poor regulation in the use the use of animals in scientific experiments. For example, the use of a single animal in numerous experiments may cause irreversible harm to the animal. The regulations in use differ depending on the species in question. The last most significant disadvantage cited by animal rights activists is that animal-based research contributes toward species extinction. Though some animals are bred for scientific research, the number of animals used has increased. Judging from the principal disadvantages of experiments on animals, it is evident that they can be mitigated using proper regulatory measures and adherences to ethical guidelines. Some of these guiding principles are clearly outlined by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), including replacement strategies. The latter apply where the use of alternative methods of achieving targets, other than animals for the experiments can be reached. This means that animal research can be adopted as the last resort, thus ensuring that scientists do not cross ethical boundaries. There is also the principle of reduction, in which case, the maximization of information from the least number of animals can be adopted. This would serve to overcome the perception that animal research could lead to extinction of species. The final moral guideline is refinement. This is an ethical guideline which recommends utilization of the best scientific experimental methods to guarantee the least possible pain or distress to animals for their welfare. These principles not only seek to safeguard animals’ welfare, but they are also aimed at increasing quality of scientific research. The ability of animal experiments to secure scientific goals is desirable especially when they do not suffer distress (Abbott 146). Upholding moral obligations to experiential animals means that they also require protection and they have a right to life. One of the most controversial cases of scientific research on animals was ‘the Brown Dog Affair.’ This contentious case occurred in England and was instigated by anti-vivisection activists who caused chaos between the medical students and the police over the dissection of a dog. The activists argued that the dog was conscious and under distress during the experiment. However, the lead scientist, Bayliss, was adamant that the dog was adequately anesthetized prior to the experiment (Mason 12-24). Years later, demonstrations by some anti-vivisectionists in Central London occurred amounting to a thousand people. It led to the infamous demonstration known as the Brown Dog Affair. This occurred after the placement of a brown statue of a dog in Battersea. The demonstration occurred as a series, which provoked the removal of the statue by the Battersea Council. The anti-vivisectionists later set it up after a span of 70 years. The carrying out of vivisection on both anesthetized and naturally live animals raised the controversy over vivisection. These riots led to the formation of a royal commission on vivisection. The animal rights activists argue that it is not the animals that need the experiments, rather, the victims to the diseases (Mason 26-28). Although there might have been some ethical violations during these experiments on dogs by Bayliss and other scientists, the research yielded positive outcomes. It is because of these scientific experiments that researchers came to learn about hormones like insulin and how to regulate them in humans for better health. Without such a discovery, it would be virtually impossible to treat and manage diabetes. In conclusion, animal experiments are approved as a standard scientific research method. The use of animal experiments in physiology is acceptable whilst vivisection for curiosity purposes is cruel. Scientific research on animals is also supported by the use of ethical principles for regulatory purposes and further advancement of scientific research quality. Regulations ensure that only justified experiments are carried out on animals. Overall, animal usage in scientific experiments benefits both humans and animals. These advantages outweigh the negative effects, since research is necessary for sustenance of human health, yet it would not be rational to use people for experiential purposes. Works Cited Abbott, Alison. Animal Testing: More Than a Cosmetic Change. Nature, 438 (2005): 144–146. Mason, Peter. The Brown Dog Affair. London: London Books. 1997. Print. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Report on Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. 2005. Web. Read More