Should Animals Be Used in Medical Research - Assignment Example

SHOULD ANIMALS BE USED IN MEDICAL RESEARCH? Introduction There has been a long history of animal experimentation in the medical years, spanning more than a hundred years. However, the topic has always produced heated debates as to the implications for treatment on humans for drugs, vaccines and treatments developed through use on animals. In addition to this factor, the other highly contested principle on animal experimentation is the moral and ethical factor of harming another animal in order to save the lives of humans. Medical research using animal experimentation involves the testing, assessment and advancement of medical procedures, drugs and devices, not cosmetic or consumer produce testing (Myers, 2007). The use of animal experimentation has enabled the medical community to assist in the prevention, cure or treatment of numerous diseases and viruses. The thesis statement asserts that without the continued usage of animal experiments in medical research humans would not be able to experience the medical improvements and advancements which are developed through research on animals. Diseases could not be effectively controlled or prevented, no vaccines developed for viruses, and less effective treatment for illnesses. Part I - Thesis Medical research carried out on animals is of utmost importance as the results it produces helps to prevent and cure human diseases, which may be fatal if vaccines are not produced from this research. The dilemma here is that it could be argued that the disease it’s self may well have been brought about through the use of medical research. The reason this paper argues for medical research is due to the beneficial importance and relevancy to humans and non humans that this research brings in controlling and curing diseases, and advancing medical treatments, drugs and vaccines. In addition, the importance of this research is further reaching than the medical community’s benefit as without animal research the use of certain pesticides could be detrimental to the environment, humans and non humans alike (FDA cited in Shamoo & Resnik, 2003). Because of the regulations for drugs that are used to treat humans, policies have been put into place to alleviate and govern medical research as the regulations state as a prerequisite that all drugs administered to humans are first tested on animals (Orlans, 1990). In particular the Draize eye irritancy test (Brody, 1998) has encountered a lot of criticism in the past due to the nature of research conducted on animals, as in certain countries it is a requirement that the Draize eye test be carried out on all products that may come in contact with the eyes.  Nevertheless, alternatives to the test are being researched. The quantity, quality and scale of the research conducted poses the argument that the means should justify the end result. Therefore, it could also be argued that the suffering and pain the animal experiences due to medical research is of little significance in regards to the purpose and outcome of the research. Research on animals is also consequential in acquiring vaccines for life threatening diseases, and with the advancement of research, transgenic animals play a major part in the contribution of the development of major life saving drugs. Research has also realized a major breakthrough in cancer research and an insight into possibilities of organ transplants from pigs, without animal experimentations these breakthroughs could not have happened (Wilmut 1997).  Animal research plays a major role in keeping the equilibrium between advancement on science and the preservation of life, both human and non human. Despite these arguments animals must not be viewed as mere objects of as inconsequential value and worth, and no unnecessary pain and suffering should be experienced by the animals, in the name of research which is demeaning and not of paramount importance to the cure, prevention or advancement of treatment for a medical condition or disease for humans or non human animals (Koenig 1999). Protests by animal activists have encouraged researchers and policy-makers to form governing bodies to regulate and set certain criteria for more humane and ethical animal experimentation. Animal research has brought about improvements on the treatment of not only human life but the welfare of certain non human animals, such as prevention of rabies in dogs (Brody, 1998).  The advancement of medical research has brought about the use of statisticians to analyze and predict the outcome of certain research thus reducing the number of animals in the research. Statistician play a vital role in reducing the number of animals, especially in demanding research as statistics collected can be used in place of non humans in research thus the statistics can formulate the research (Engeman & Shumake, 1993). Research on non human animals has come a long way from when John Cade performed lithium tests on animals as testing on humans had ominous consequences due to the toxicity of the lithium, these tests later proved to be of beneficial importance to the treatment of bipolar disorder through chemical intervention (Walter, 1999). Medical animal research has really increased to broaden our knowledge of human and non human animal genetics, increasing our perspective of the relevancy of animal experimentation for human and non human animals (Brody, 1998).   Part 2 – Anti-thesis Advocates of animal experimentation, which include the implementation of educational exercises, experiments and tests that will harm the animals psychologically and physiologically, maintain that this experimentation has been an important part of nearly all medical advances. In spite of these claims, numerous medical historians disagree with this opinion; they believe that major advancements in medical areas such as psychiatry, heart disease, immunology and cancer were in fact accomplished through methods of non animal experimentation such as clinical research, autopsies on humans and patient observation (Reines, 1991). Substantial research has established that animal experimentation is unproductive and undependable, therefore the newly developed methodologies which are proving to be more reliable and also less costly than animal experimentation, should be seriously considered as an alternative. Many scientists are now starting to question the validation and need for animal experimentation to continue. Recent research from the United Kingdom has shown that 82% of family doctors feel that data retrieved from animal research may not be totally applicable to for human use (Europeans for Medical Progress, 2004 cited Anderegg, et al., 2006). Anderegg et al. (2006) suggest that historically human medical treatment and understanding has been established through data obtained from animal experimentation. However, this occurrence has led to tragic medical implications for humans. By 1963 animal experiments conducted to try and induce lung cancer in animals had been unsuccessful, even though a great range of human studies had shown a significant relationship between humans who smoked cigarettes and the development of lung cancer (Brecher, 1963). At this time, many scientists and doctors had such a strong belief in the results of animal research that this failure to produce cancer in animal experiments led them to develop strong reservations about the validity of the human studies, and the implications of smoking cigarettes. The result was that no public health warnings regarding the harm cigarettes can cause were given for several years, during which time many thousands died from lung cancer (Anderegg, et al., 2006). The Dr Hadwen Trust (BBC Focus, 2008), a chief non-animal medical research charity in the UK, propose that countries such as Britain should endeavor to show the global community that ethical research methodologies can produce more effective results than animal experimentation. They believe that animal experimentation is not only unethical, but the results can be deceptive, as different species can have different responses to stimuli and drugs. Seabra (2009) from the Frame Organization supports these beliefs. They have reported that five case studies, in malaria, AIDS, hepatitis C, cognition and stroke have shown that research conducted on primates in these medical fields have made unsatisfactory contributions to medical development. As scientific and technological advancements continue to grow, they develop more effective alternate methodologies to animal experimentation. These methodologies also have the benefit of producing human data which can be directly applied to the patients. In addition to these considerations of medical applicability and effectiveness, ethical factors should be considered by the medical community. These animals are forced to experience painful and invasive procedures and are imposed to a lifelong imprisonment in a laboratory, for the pursuit of unreliable and inapplicable data for human diseases. The case study conducted on malaria shows that a number of vaccines researched and developed through animal experimentation have been unsuccessful in creating immunity in humans. A factor that has been identified which may cause this lack of success is that the animals used may not in a natural setting become infected by the parasite used in the studies. This factor could produce conflicting results, when artificially obtained data is applied to a naturally occurring infection. However, as previously stated development in non-animal methodologies has produced an alternative. This method studies the liver stage of malaria, through in vitro human liver cell cultures. It is believed that by doing this there is the potential to screen anti-malarial drugs, and find vaccine candidates. Moreover, human studies are critical to understanding and reducing the occurrence of malaria, as the researchers need to understand why the parasites differ in their rate of infectivity, and why human reaction in the infection can differ so greatly (Seabra, 2009). The MRMC (cited Anderegg, et al., 2006) evaluation of ten randomly selected animal models of human diseases showed that no significant contributions had been made to prevent or cure human diseases, providing sparse information for the improved understanding of the disease or treatment for humans. Animal experimentation and their results can not authenticate nor disprove hypotheses regarding human diseases; clinical research with human participants is the only method that can be used to do this. There are numerous other techniques to do this, and in a more advanced method, than through animal experimentation. Part 3 – Synthesis It has been argued in part 1 that animal research has helped in the combat against disease and medical conditions in humans and non human animals (FDA cited in Shamoo & Resnik, 2003). Applying animal research results to humans, it has been argued in part 2, that much of the research  bears little or no  relevancy due to vast differences in the species to humans, and the unethical nature of the experiments (Anderegg, et. al., 2006).  In addition, certain research by animal activists defies the importance of animal research stating that the two are not compatible and the results of certain tests do not create a reliable hypothesis, as the side effects and effectiveness of drugs and vaccines administered to humans and non human animals are different. Nevertheless, despite these arguments the advocation for medical research using animal experimentation supports itself. Medical research using animal experimentation has facilitated much of the significant advances made in modern medicine, including the use of penicillin, which was tested on mice, through to organ transplantation. Myers (2007) suggests that any who has ever had medical treatment or intervention, will most likely have received treatment which had first been tested on a non-human animal. However, simple procedures and techniques should not be tested on animals, as there are alternative ways, such as computer simulation, or tissue cultures of testing these without harming an animal (Myers, 2007). Nevertheless, some experimentation must be used for more complex testing. For example, an HIV drug must be tested on animals, as did the development of the rabies vaccine, and the cure for diseases such polio, one of the main reasons for this testing on animals before being administered to humans is to ensure that the vaccine prevents the disease (Festing, 2002). The rabies vaccines acquired from dogs has benefited humans and non humans as it has helped both species to fight against the virus. The vaccine developed by Pasteur in 1880 was tested on dogs, with the intention of treating dogs, however, when a child bitten by a rabid dog was brought to Pasteur by the distort parents, he succumbed to their pleas and gave the child the vaccine. The risk was great, but it worked and promoted further human testing. In doing so many thousands of lives have been saved (Festing, 2002). Without using an animal to test and develop the vaccine, these lives would not have been saved. In addition to this Myers (2007) states that an HIV drug needs to be tested using animals as the researchers cannot grow the necessary culture of the immune system with an animal host, it will not grow in a petri dish, therefore the only option is to use the animal. Ethical experimentation of research on non human animals is a delicate issue, with moral and ethical implications. Animal experiments still play a vital role in research, though some do not show positive results, nor does any type of research show a 100% success rate, as is expected in all types of experimental research (Festing, 2002). With accordance to ethical and moral principles certain governments now have policies that state how these animals should be treated and that no unnecessary experimentation should be permitted due to the codes of practice developed to protect the unnecessary harming of animals (NHMRC, 2009). Policies implemented in certain countries on the care and use of non-human primates for scientific purposes has brought about a better standard of the welfare for the animals (NHMRC, 2009). With the advancement of research, alternatives to the use of animal experimentations is ongoing but it is not yet possible to substitute animal research totally, the reduction of the use of animals is imperative to further success of attaining valuable medical research (NHMRC, 2009).  There is documented evidence were medical products have been released onto the medical market without stringent testing and this has left humans vulnerable to dangerous risks (FDA, cited in Shamoo & Resnik, 2003). With the advance of research certain amount of research can be performed using different means but with certain research the use of animals cannot be avoided (NHMRC, 2009).  As argued in part 1, the evidence for the use of animal experimentation has shown that vaccines against the rabies virus, and drug testing to combat the HIV virus, to name only two of many positive results in using animal studies, have produced very effective results against these two viruses in humans. Additionally, the rabies vaccine, and the HIV drugs must be developed and tested on animals first before become used on humans. Therefore without animal experimentation these positive results for both cases could not have happened. Conclusion The thesis statement must be readdressed at this stage. Animal experimentation is an important and integral part of medical research and development. Research must carry on using animal experimentation to continue to eradicate preventable and illness in humans and non human animals. Ethical considerations must be implemented to ensure that no unnecessary experimentation is done, causing harm and distress to the animal. Presently, animal research is fundamental to the development of new vaccines, treatments and cures. However, it is imperative to bear in mind the different types of diseases that still affect humans. As with all scientific animal research there is always a question to the validity and ethical justification to the research itself. Animal research is still beneficial to humans, but with the advancement of science, alternatives are being researched or in development stages.  Alleviating the suffering of non human animals due to animal research is tantamount. The research on finding alternatives to using animals should always be at the top of the agenda, and world policy should be veering towards the assessment and setting certain criteria to justify any experiment performed on non humans. Animal welfare organisations play a very vital role in ensuring the decline in the use of animals in research and in the development of alternative methods. However, this does not negate the impact that animal experimentation has had on the advancement in medical treatment, and so long as this treatment is advancing, and it is deemed that the research is important enough, experiments that use animals should continue. REFERENCES Anderegg, C., Archibald, K., Bailey, J., Cohen, M. J., Kaufman, S. R. & Pippin, J. J. ( 2006). A critical look at animal experimentation. Medical Research and Modernization Committee. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf BBC Focus. (2008). Should animal testing for medical purposes be banned. BBC focus poll. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.focusmag.co.uk/voteList.asp?item_ID=35941 Brecher, R. (1963). The Consumers Union Report on Smoking and the Public Interest. Mount Vernon: Consumers Union. Brody, B. A. (1998). The Ethics of Biomedical Research: An international perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. Engeman, R. M & Shumake, S. A. (1993). The assessment and alleviation of pain and distress in research animals. The American Statistician, 47. Europeans for Medical Progress. (2004). In Anderegg, C., Archibald, K., Bailey, J., Cohen, M. J., Kaufman, S. R. & Pippin, J. J. ( 2006). A critical look at animal experimentation. Medical Research and Modernization Committee. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf FDA. (1994). In Shamoo, A. E. & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Festing, M. (2002). Is the use of animals in biomedical research still necessary? Retrieved January 4, 2009 from(required) http://www.animalresearch.info/en/medical/articles/use_of_animals_in_biomedical_research Koenig, F. (1999). In Shamoo, A. E. & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Myers, L. (2007). Animal testing necessary in medical research. Retrieved January 4, 2009 fromhttp://media.wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2007/11/06/Opinions/Animal.Testing.Necessary.In.Medical.Research-3080864.shtml NHMRC (2009). Policy on the care and use of non-human primates for scientific purposes. Retrieved January 4, 2009 from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health_ethics/animal/nonhuman.htm Orlans, B. (1990). Policy issues in the use of animals in research, testing and education. The Hastings Centre Report, 20(3), 25+. Reines, B. P. (1991). On the locus of medical discovery. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 116, 183-209. Seabra, R. (2009). Replacing primates in medical research. Frame Organization. Retrieved January 4, 2009 fromhttp://www.frame.org.uk/dynamic_files/replacing_primates_in_medical_research.pdf Walter, G. (1999). John Cade and lithium. Retrieved January 5, 2009 from http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/50/7/969?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=john+cade+and+lithium&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT Wilmut, B. (1997). In Shamoo, A. E. & Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More