Animal testing why and why not - Essay Example

?Introduction In the movie Legally Blonde 2, one of the subplots is how the lead character’s dog, Bruiser, looks for his mom and discover she is a test animal at a large cosmetic company. In another movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes, an experimental drug for Alzheimer’s and other brain diseases gives rise to a highly intelligent primate named Caesar who eventually leads his kind in a revolt against humans. Will Smith’s movie I Am Legend featured rats that were being used for animal testing. Movies are supposedly adapted from real life and, to sell, their stories should be relevant to audiences. If so, then the use of animals for research is indeed a popular and big enough issue of today to be made part of several movies. Animals have been a part of man’s life since time immemorial. This has resulted in an indescribable affinity between man and animals. Dogs, cats, hamsters and other small creatures have found their way to people’s homes as pets. Other animals live on farms and provide protection and livelihood for their owners. Some also serve as companions to human beings, especially those who have disabilities or a just lonely. Still other animals exist to maintain a balance in nature. A good example may be found in the movie Bee Movie. When the bees decided to stop working – making honey and transferring pollen from one flower to another – the flowers, trees and plants died. Of course, when the plants die, humans lose a source of oxygen. Fish is another example of animals that help keep the balance. Fish clean the Earth’s waters and also to provide sustenance to other living beings such as animals and humans. Obviously, there are reasons why animals are put on Earth to co-exist with man. If man benefits from the presence of animals, the same can be said for animals. In man, domesticated animals find shelter and food. Among the needs supplied by man, the most important of all is probably protection. Although animals have their own defensive characteristics, they are usually considered defenseless and depend on their owner for protection. This is why the issue of animal testing has become such a big controversy in modern times. Unlike in the past when there was not a very loud clamor for to recognize animal rights, nowadays, animal lovers have spoken for their pets and animals in general and have put into motion several activities in order for society to recognize that animal’s, too, have privileges. The use of animals for medical research has been in society for over 200 years. In the 1800’s, due to the widespread infestation of rats in Europe, these were caught, sold for money and eventually used to understand the effect of fasting on humans. (Rat) Aside from the fact that they reproduce fast and they are small, rats and mice are mammals that have genetic, biological and behavioral characteristics similar to humans (Melina) so scientists often use them in trying to understand people. Animal testing is not only limited to vertebrates. French scientist Louis Pasteur employed silk worms in proving the gem theory of disease (Germ) and fruit flies have provided understanding of how animals develop genetically. (Murnaghan, 1) Obviously, there were no qualms in employing animals to develop scientific research. It has to be noted that supporters of animal research do not condone any form of experimentation but only those that are helpful in finding ways to help humans. As reiterated by animal research followers, if the experiment is not for the common good, animal testing is not allowed. Like Sir John Vane has said “if one reviews the history of medical science, it is clear that every major medical advance has depended on animal experiments.” There are those, on the other hand, that do not share Sir Vane’s opinion. Objections to the use of animals in experimentation can be traced back to the 1700’s. Edmund O’Meara said that the torture inflicted by vivisection or conducting experiments on animals “places the body in an unnatural state.” (History) Philosopher Peter Singer claims that humans are not completely above nature and has used the term speciesism to describe this attitude humans have towards animals. (Gargaro) The publication of Singer’s Animal Liberation sparked the American animal rights movement. (Lin) Pro-animal rights advocates believe that animal testing should not be allowed because the animals cannot give their consent to these procedures. They claim that animals are no different from humans and if people cannot be tested on without their consent, then the same should be applied to animals. (Lin) They also say that animals and humans are different and as such results acquired from animal testing will not be exact since the end goal of the experiments will be applied to the human living system. Personally, I believe that animals should be used for medical research and experimentation. I acknowledge that they feel pain as humans do but I am of the mind that scientists are not so inhumane to intentionally proceed with their experiments without administering some degree of sedatives or pain-killers on the test animals so as not to hurt them. Scientists are humans and it is innate in humans not to inflict pain on fellow human beings or animals. Another reason I support animal testing is because as history has shown the practice has produced scientific breakthroughs that people in society and even animals have benefitted from. Lastly, scientists do not choose test animals randomly. In fact, the most commonly used in animal testing are mice and rats which most households consider a nuisance and even have traps and baits for. Animal Testing – why and why not Because the use of animals in medical research is common practice, countries have adopted regulations to serve as guidelines. In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council has its Australian code of practice for the care and use of animals for scientific purpose. (Animal) In the United States, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is the federal law that requires licensing and registration of facilities that use animals for commercial sale, research, transport or exhibits. (Lin) This was created by the government in response to the clamor of animal right activists regarding the use of animals for medical research. Despite this move, animal rights supporters believe that the AWA’s regulations are not enough to protect animals. In an audit conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it was discovered that the AWA’s Animal Care unit which is responsible for checking facilities under the AWA had inadequacies in the performance of its tasks. (Schaeffer) One point of contention between pro-animal testing supporters and anti-animal testing advocates is that animals feel pain such as humans do. Those who speak for the animals maintain that it is not right for animals to go through such kind of suffering at the hands of humans. They contend that since humans will think twice before subjecting another to the same kind of testing, the same consideration should also be applied to animals because the latter also feel pain. In this aspect, animals are like humans and should be afforded the same moral status. Followers of animal testing do not agree with this reasoning. They assert that, as Aristotle explained in his hierarchy of nature, beings with higher reasoning ability which is man is the dominant figure. (Aristotle’s) If there was a choice between hurting man and a being with lower reasoning ability, then choosing the being below man in the hierarchy is only consistent with Aristotle’s reasoning. Moreover, the fact that animals feel pain is not to mean that they are morally equal with man. If so, then the world would be deprived of food supply because it would be wrong to kill the animals that provide nutrition to humans. Supporters of animal rights also allege that medical research can do without animals because they have been discoveries made devoid of animal testing. Penicillin, the Heimlich maneuver and the cure for scurvy were all developed without vivisection. (Lin) In Australia, there is the Medical Advances Without Animals Trust (MAWA) which is an organization and registered charity that aims to improve human health and treatment outcomes without using animals or animal products. (MAWA) Dr. M. Beddow Bayly, a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in the United Kingdom, has also listed medical advances such as chloroform and anaesthesia that do not employ vivisection. (Bayly) Indeed, these are all laudable discoveries. On the other hand, medical breakthroughs such as the discovery of the SARS pathogen (Smith) and the cure for yellow fever. (Spitzka) The fact that cannot be ignored is that although there are a number of medical innovations without the vivisection there are also medical feats thanks to animal testing. The human body is different from an animal’s physiology and as such results from experiments done with vivisection may not be accurate. This is another contention of pro-animal rights followers. It is wrong to use another species of living being to test a drug or medical treatment that was developed for the human living system. (Marston) Incorrect results of animal studies have resulted to untreated diseases or people being killed like the adverse side effects of drugs such as Oraflex, Suprol and Meritol that have been removed from the market. (American Anti-Vivisection Society) Conversely, medical researchers maintain that in any experiment employing animals the differences between humans and animals are taken into account and appropriate model organisms are chosen to minimize inter-species variation. (Pycroft) Because animals are very complex living, moving organisms, they have more commonalities with humans than differences. (Research) For one thing, humans and the mice, rats and monkeys used in medical research are mammals. While pigs that have the same cardiovascular systems with humans can aid expand knowledge about heart diseases and the like, the shark’s immunity to cancer cells can assist in the development of a mechanism which may also prevent the formation of cancerous cells in humans. (Animal Research) The biggest argument made by anti-vivisection supporters is that animal testing is simply cruelty to animals. (Overton) The act of cutting open an animal or subjecting the same to pain is considered mean. Cruelty should not be tolerated whether the victim is a human or an animal. People should stop inflicting harm on defenseless animals just because they believe the effect would benefit the greater good. Consequently, anti-vivisection supporters continuously move for the total abolition of animal testing. The people behind animal testing counter that there are safeguards regulating their actions so as to ensure that the animals are taken care of and not treated inhumanely. This is why animals are used in experiments only when there is no other way to conduct the research. There are also laws that dictate how the animals used for testing should be taken care of in the facility. As for subjecting animals to pain while conscious, medical researchers state that for them to achieve the circumstances required by the experiment and the result they would like to see, there are times when the animals are not sedated. In other words, if there is an intentional administration of pain, this is because it is needed in the experiment. Otherwise, the scientists are mandated to handle the animals with care. Certainly, both groups in the debate view the issues around animal testing from different perspectives. Where one sees the use of animals as dispensable and unimportant, the other thinks the animals play a significant role in medical research. Where one says it is cruel, the other contends that it is much more cruel to use humans as laboratory subjects. Conclusion The issue of animal testing appears to have no resolution in the near future. Animal rights supporters will continue to make noise for the animals. They feel a sense of empathy for the animals that, they believe, should be taken care of and not be abused or maltreated. For them, sacrificing the life of an animal to better the life of humans is ruthless and should be stopped. Animal testing followers, in contrast, believe that the pain endured by the animals in the laboratory is a small price to pay for the millions who will benefit from the medical research the animals are used for. They also stand firm in saying that they do not carelessly use animals for testing but adhere to the guidelines given by the government on how to maintain the animals for medical research. It is suggested that scientists should find alternative methods to advance medical research. Certainly, groups behind animal testing are trying to find substitutes to using animals but until that time when a sufficient alternative is discovered, animals will still be part of medical research. Because of animal testing, major medical advances resulting to antibiotics, blood transfusions, dialysis, chemotherapy, bypass surgery and more have been made. (Harvey) I believe that animal testing should continue because of the good it bestows on mankind. I understand the compassion animal lovers have for animals in general. Nevertheless, based on all the readings and facts, the medical researchers try to minimize the use of animals if possible and only employ animals that are in-bred or are not on the road to extinction. Because of the many developments in science and medicine due to animal testing, I have faith that medical researchers have utilized animals for the common good. Works Cited “American Anti-Vivisection Society.” Pawprints & Purrs, Inc. 1997-2010. Web. 30 November 2011. “Animal Research – The Top 10 Questions.” Americans for Medical Progress. n.d. Web. 1 December 2011. “Animal Research Ethical Issues.” Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. n.d. Web. 30 November 2011. “Aristotle’s View of Nature and the Christian Theory of Creation Species are eternally unchangeable.” The Path to the Contemporary Theory of Evolution. www.tparents.org. n.d. Web. 30 November 2011. Baylay, M. Beddow. “Animal Research (vivisection) had nothing to do with these medical advances:” Blatantpropaganda.org. n.d. Web. 30 November 2011. Gargaro, Carolyn C. “Animals Used in Medical Research.” July 1991. Web. 29 November 2011. “Germ Theory Disease.” Animal Research.info. n.d. Web. 28 November 2011. Harvey, Jaime. “Animal Testing for Medical Research.” debatewise.org. n.d. Web. 1 December 2011. “History of Animal Testing.” Timetoast. n.d. Web. 28 November 2011. John Vane. “Animal research and medical progress.” AnimalResearch.info. 1996. Web. 29 November 2011. Lin, Doris. “Overview of the Animal Welfare Act”. Animal Rights. About.com. n.d. Web. 28 November 2011. Lin, Doris. “Historical Timeline of the Animal Rights Movement.” About.com. n.d. Web. 29 November 2011. Lin, Doris. “Why It’s Wrong to Test on Animals”. Animal Rights. About.com. n.d. Web. 28 November 2011. Marston, Helen. “Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research?” New Internationalist Magazine. n.d. Web. 30 November 2011. Medical Advances Without Animals. www.mawa-trust.org.au. n.d. 30 November 2011. Melina, Remy. “Why do Medical Researchers Use Mice?” Life’s Little Mysteries. 16 November 2010. Web. 30 November 2011. Murnaghan, Ian. “Invertebrates Used for Testing.” About Animal Testing. 22 July 2010. Web. 29 November 2011. Overton, Kelly. “Stop animal testing – it’s not just cruel, it’s ineffective.” 23 June 2006. Web. All-creatures.org. 30 November 2011. Pycroft, Laurie. “Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research?” New Internationalist Magazine. n.d. Web. 30 November 2011. “Rat.” Animal Research.info. n.d. Web. 28 November 2011. “Research using animals: an overview.” University of Oxford. n.d. Web. 30 November 2011. Shaeffer, Crystal. “USDA Audit Reveals Shortcomings in Animal Welfare Act Enforcement.” American Anti-Vivisection Society. 2006. Web. 29 November 2011. Smith, Wesley J. “Pro-animal or anti-human?: A Sars Revelation.” National Review Online. Discovery.org. 25 April 2003. Web. 30 November 2011. Spitzka, E.C. “Benefits of Vivisection”. The New York Times. 1897. Web. 30 November 2011. Read More