Animal Experimentation - Good Science or Pointless Cruelty - Essay Example

Animal experimentation - Good Science or Pointless Cruelty Introduction Animal experimentation, which is also described as animal testing or animal research is the process of using animals to experiment some issues that are experienced by the humans themselves. These researches are done in various places like universities, medical schools, medical companies, farms, defense establishments and the animal research industries (Reinhardt 3). Most of the experimentations that are conducted are biological in nature and genetically oriented, but sometimes the behavioral studies are also conducted. There are other experiments that involve the cutting up of a living animal and doing experiments with either of the body sections that is being researched upon. This is referred to as vivisection (Allen 14). However, the use of animals for the benefit of medicine is unreliable and wasteful. It is unethical to use the animals for experiments because they are exposed to too much pain and suffering for no benefit and yet the humans are able to come up with accurate methods that can offer much better protection to their health using other approaches. Over the years, the numbers of researches, which are conducted on animals, have increased and this has raised the concerns of some people. They started to criticize the act and question over what was happening. According to Allen, they stated that, “on an ethical ground, the benefit to the humans does not at all give explanation for the injury that they are subjecting these animals to” (35). On the other side of those who were in favor of the animal testing, Allen noted that their argument was that, “these kinds of experiments were very important and essential in order to advance the understanding of medical research” (35). In the society, there are two sides of people, those who are in agreement with the animal experiment and those who do not agree with this act. Both sides have their reasons as to why they are considering their side to be better In terms of how they are taking care of the environment (Allen 45). Later the divisions between pro and anti animal experimenting groups become something of the public. In 1822, an act was drafted that protected the animals against the cruelty they were facing-The Cruelty Animals Act of 1876 (Reinhardt 27). I do believe that, the explanations given by the experimentalists do not amount to justification for the use of animals for experiments. Furthermore, these experiments are much of a waste of resources like money, and final results are not effective to the point of saving human lives as it was intended. Instead, it creates more of a dilemma to the society. There are better and accurate ways, which have been discovered by scientists that can help in conducting the testing and researches, with much greater protection than the use of animals (Allen 47). Conduct in researches Scientific integrity bases on the fact of knowledge and theories together with observations that involves institutions and individuals. Cases that are seen today remind the community that the regulations are not enough to protect the animals over the experiments being conducted on them (Allen 34). Those who were advocating for the animal research had only one view in their minds. They did not consider the animals at all. What was done was to check on the risks that could affect the humans only. Because the researches were still continuing, some liberation movements were formed in order to free the animals from captivity and the scary experience of being exploited (Reinhardt 87). The national research council decided to print out some documents that shall provide guidance to those that are conducting their animal research. The main aim of this and the forming of other regulations and policies is “to hold investigators and institutions accountable for the use of animals in researches” (Hayhurst 55). These documents show the need for the guideline in science based testing in the laboratory and the care programs. Wastefulness in Animal Researches Most of the testing conducted on these animals is with the aim of finding a cure of the human diseases like polio, Aids, cancer and other deadly human diseases. Each period of the years, millions of fish, cats, monkeys and other animals are subjected to these experiments. This is clearly seen as a waste of money and lives of these animals because drugs tested on them failed or harmed humans. Many individuals are suffering because the better research alternative, which can be of much help are not funded or considered at all. For example, in the case of polio vaccine, which was produced from the monkey, cells later on resulted in some viruses which late caused very dangerous diseases to be transferred to humans at the time when the vaccine was being administered. This same experiment was not a must that it gets tested on the monkeys, because it can be tested on the humans and they could have come up with a safer vaccine (Hayhurst 60). Approximately, the animal research uses about 30 million animals every year and several billion dollars. Death and suffering of these animals is not justified because the facts do not support the conclusion. It has be noted that, most of the things that medical professionals have learned about what substances that are causing human cancer and the birth defects have arose from the experiments conducted in animals. The reason to this is because the testing done on animals do not accurately portray what occurs in the human bodies. Animals and humans have completely different genes and anatomy (Berg et al 56). The physiological reactions to the drugs vary greatly from different species to species. For example, guinea pigs are killed by penicillin and the same is inactive in rabbits; cats are killed instantly by aspirin and the same brings about birth defects in rats, mice, dogs and monkeys; morphine acts as a depressant in humans, but it is a stimulant in horses (Hayhurst 55).These data that are received jeopardizes the kind of experiments being conducted. Do animals really help to fight cancer? Since the act of conquest on cancer in 1971, united state has been on the losing victory. The country has spent almost $ 200 on the research on cancer. However, a lot of citizens are still dying every year. This is more than 500,000 Americans who die due to cancer related problems. “The death rate is 73 % since the fight against cancer began” (Hayhurst 80). Are there any benefits from animal testing? Several of products that are safe for the humans can be created form other means. And from this lives are saved. The negative results far are many than the positive ones. The animal testing is deadly and unethical. The general opinion from the experimentalists that they are no other ways of doing the research better is not true. Some methods that they could use include in vitro techniques (Hayhurst 45). This is where synthetic membranes can be used to demonstrate the real effects of chemical on the living skins. In addition, computer models can effectively simulate an experiment and come up with better results pertaining the diagnosis or research in question (Berg et al 16). Although they are not representing the whole organism, they somehow prove to be very useful far better that animal testing. The charitable donations made by the good donors, taxes played by citizens, all unknowingly are contributing to animal testing. These help to fund animal exploitation. The only law that seems to be saving these animals is the animal welfare act. Animals do not belong to us (Berg et al 56). We do not have the rights to use them in any manner that we would like. They are just like us; they feel pain and are afraid. If we end up killing them and approximately 90% of the medicine that pass the test on animals do fail in humans, therefore, this will be like a waste of lives, money and it is unfruitful (Reinhardt 57). Success In vitro Testing strategies Scientific researchers have come up with better ways to do toxicity testing without using animals. The Integrated Testing Strategy has come up with In vitro Testing Strategies that replaces the animals that was developed for regulatory purpose. The first example is seen in the eye irritation and corrosion to replace in vivo studies and the second is seen on the reproductive toxicity. Better information gathering and sharing and flexibility of the Integrated Testing Strategy was the main system to bring about the change. Conclusion Research alternative to the use of animals for testing can be conducted using organs, blood and tissues from the humans. This will reduce the numbers of the animals from being killed and used in experiments. Billions of health care money that has been wasted by being used to fund animals’ experiments that are being repeated now and then without good results will be saved and used for better outcome. In this regard, It is unethical to use the animals for experiments because they are exposed to too much pain and suffering for no benefit and yet the humans are able to come up with accurate methods that can offer much better protection to their health using other approaches. Works cited: Allen, Michael .The case for animal experimentation: an evolutionary and ethical perspective. Berkeley, California: University of California press. 1986. Print. Berg et al, Tom. The case for animal rights: updated with a new preface. Berkeley, California: university of California press. 2004. Print. Reinhardt, C and Swiss, Institute. Alternatives to animal testing: new ways in the biomedical sciences, trends and progress. Weinheim, New York: VCH .1994. Print. Berg, N., et al. Toxicology in the 21st century – working our way towards a visionary reality. Novozymes AS, Denmark. Toxicol. In Vitro 25 (4), 874–881. 2011. Print. Read More