Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Experiments - Research Paper Example

Running Head: Should animals be used for scientific experiments? Is that inhuman Introduction: The use of animals for scientific experiments is a complex and a controversial issue. Some people believe that using animals for experiments is fine. However some believe its inhuman to use them. It’s true that animals have been tested for advance research on drugs to transfer the results to humans as a cure to diseases like cancer, diabetes and hypertension. Favor of the argument: Cure to such diseases is a need whereas leather, furs are luxurious needs that are fulfilled from exploitation of animals.According to Whishaw, brown rats were the biggest discovery of the 20th century (Whishaw). It led to progress in the area of cancer, diabetes, physiology, reproductively, hypertension etc. They were very helpful for advance researches to find cure of the diseases. (Langley, Animal experimentation) Thousands of people died due to incurable diseases of their time like smallpox (that was before the 18th century). When animal testing was introduced to researchers by Edward Jenner, it successful in discovering vaccine for the smallpox. This helped a lot of people and it continues to do so or else people would’ve been dying thinking its incurable. The basic justification given to this statement is that if human use animals for specific purposes like food, transportation, leather etc then why can’t they be used for experiments which are beneficial for the humans in the end. Henry H.Donaldson, a great researcher was convinced at a point in his career that it’s justified to use animals for scientific experiment. Animals basically act as volunteers for testing or researches for their behavior and response to drugs. In his book (Donaldson) he explained his view regarding how beneficial this could be for humans when animals are tested for researches. He mentions albino rats who, according to him possess a similar nervous system to the human CNS. Thus research results could easily be transferred from rats to human. He said comparing the two, does not mean that humans at any point are overgrown rats but it was just to enrich and precisely verify the results. Rats were not only used for drugs testing but were also used to explore human behavior. Likewise Watson believed that animal research had the right to exist for its own sake. He believed that it was important to investigate the response and behavior of rats for their own good. It was important to know how the animals were responding to the changes (Watson S. , 2009) As a result there was a rapid growth in the research and development in nutrition and biochemistry from 1910-1914(Mark A. Suckow). The point is if a child’s life is saved due to these discoveries, isn’t it worth all this? An animal's life or a child’s life? Animals are used where necessary, not as a waste. Where ever alternatives could be implied scientists and researchers use them but it’s a fact that some answers could only be resolved by either testing directly on human or animals the question with an obvious answer who was more worth living?? People in the favor of this argument believe that several sufferings and diseases to which human are more vulnerable than animals are for example if an animal gets one of its claw deformed it won’t suffer the humiliation like human would have in the same situation. In fact the animal does not even realize any change to its body(Fox). People believe that the scientists are harsh on animals with their treatment to which scientists assured that they use anesthesia when testing or experimenting. Speciesm is a common practice of almost all the scientists and researchers who believe that man alone is given dominion over all animals on earth.(Singer) Against the argument: The concept of Speciesm is cosidered biased by people who are agaist the argiment. It has been verified and known universally that humans have authority over all animals on earth but this is a fact to that human owe numerous responsibilities towards animal welfare as well. Some obligations are mentioned in sacred books like Bible and Talmud where special mention is given to avoid painful or cruelty act towards animals.(Steinberg) Animal testing is : Inhuman Cruel Unreliable Expensive Threat to animals habitat Debates on ethical and legal dealings related to animal testing have been highly controversial. However according to Stephen, the European Convention in animal experimentation of 1986, man has a legal obligation to respect all animals.(Barnett) It was estimated that over 50,000 animals die due experimentation done by Procter and Gamble every year. One of the IAMS test for kidney analysis resulted in killing of 24 dogs due to removal of kidney followed by an inappropriate diet. Another example includes the bone breaking tragedy of the Danes who were fed varying diet at 18 months with their front and back right legs cut out. If animals cannot speak for their rights at least humans can!(Algoe). It’s a fact that human and animals share common interests. In fact that is the basis on which most scientists today perform experiments to evaluate animal reaction when compared to humans. However if that is the case one might take interest in keeping away the physical pain of animals According to Singer such interest should be taken in account without any concession for any known human implications and considerations (Singer). Most of the tests lead to permanent injury or even death because mostly the experiments contain therapies, shocks, mutilations and diseases. Singer points the discrimination between the two with a very comprehensive example of a monkey and a retarded child. If two monkeys are able to understand, communicate and solve specific problems whereas a retarded child might not be able to respond even, does this mean select the child for testing rather than the monkey because he is more useful? Still the monkey is chosen to be tested because no matter what and how they are, humans are superior but doing so is ethically wrong and unacceptable(Michael). In some researches animals are used as models wherein animals are subjected to such conditions that they get weak or sick so that the experiment could give accurate results. They are living beings too and this methodology is beyond the limits of human. To support this claim I put forward the example of Selye’s research over stress. In her experiment the animals were caged down inside a revolving metal drum with their paws taped and were tossed at a rate of 40 tosses per minute which resulted in teeth, bones and tissues crashes. Such condition completely violates the article six of universal declaration of animal rights which states that,” Experiments on animals entailing physical or psychological suffering violate the rights of animals”(contributors) . Most of the people in the favor of animal testing say animal does not suffer from mental pain just because they cannot speak. People forget that verbal communication is not the only way of communicating. Even humans when suffer pain use non verbal gestures to convey their suffering and the same goes for animals.(Darwin) Thousands of rabbits are breaded in artificial conditions to satisfy the need of vivisection industry. They are forcefully made to suffer the pain and tortured rather than being given the leeway enjoy the natural habitat God has created for them.(Argument Against Animal Testing). However the British Medical Journal at the end concluded that the induced stress had very little similarity to the stress human develop(British Medical Journal) . Thus it was an inhuman gesture to test such an experiment on animals. (Miller) Another example the drug development of brain hemorrhages where scientists required creating a blood clot to analyze the efficiency of drugs. To do so the skulls of the monkeys were hammered and then tested with the drug. However the result concluded that the clot developed due to hammering is different from what human develop. All these misleading techniques and experiments should be banned instead scientists should observe human to discover more about them. Dr. Alice commented that it’s better to work with disturbed human rather than animals to give valid results and observations and then one should come to the conclusion equating the similarities between animals and the multifaceted Homo sapiens(Heim). The results of these experiments are never certain but one thing is certain and that is the animal would definitely go through the pain the experiment would carry as a side effect. It’s true that human and animals are somehow similar but history unfolds examples where this statement is not applicable. For instance the Thalidomide (Bantwal) tragedy that caused harm to human child. Thalidomide was a drug that that was introduced after being tested on thousands of animals for breast feeding but when despite the testing on animals all the mothers who used it had abnormal babies. Another such example includes the sad demise of thousands of animals to test the drug Clioquionol. It was a drug that was expected to relief human from diarrhea; however when the drug was dispensed to the public thousands of death and paralysis and blindness cases were recorded. Though the drugs were tested on animals causing several deaths and abnormalities in them but they were ineffective to human. As a result this could be concluded that animal testing to match human response is unreliable. On the basis of uncertainty people should not be allowed to do kill animals. Even if they do, scientists tend to take unnecessary attempts though the findings are confirmed which causes more deaths. According to PETA, 219 animals are killed in US every minute. Testing on animals is inhuman and cruel nature of human. Dr.Geek in one of his report for National Anti vivisection Society Publication that treating people and animals with same medication might result in adverse effect even death for both human and animals. Therefore it makes no sense to experiment animals for inspecting human behavior. The rapid increase in the death number of animals by testing is also a threat to their natural habitat. The artificial conditions they are kept in might make us loose the species that are extinct. In a recent report a Vet called for an end to drug testing on monkeys. He informed that monkeys are captured from the wild, away from their home group for drug testing. According to him UK experiments on 3000 monkeys per year which is huge.(Menache) It’s not only animals but along with this the tests on which a large amount of fortune is spend. The cost of animal testing is about 136 billion dollars each year and this makes each US household contribute $300 for this inhumane cause. Instead of spending it on their killing it should rather be invested for their welfare. We live in a world where vegetarians exist who believes that killing animals is a crime because they are alike living creatures on earth. They ignore their basic need of food by relying on plants rather to secure the animals so how can the world rest in peace with the killings of animals for experiment purposes? Due to the ethical dilemma and extremists scientists have found alternatives through which they can reduce the usage of animals in experimentation and the pain they cause them during it. Russell and Burch offered a framework from which human animal care was taken into account while the advancement of science continued. In his research he proposed three main principles better known as 3Rs; Replacement Reduction Refinement. According to them replacement was a way through which the scientist were supposed to minimize the use of animals or so called conscious living vertebrates in their scientific methods. For example robots or material models could be used instead of animals to test the reaction or hypothesis. With better techniques and data analysis this could be achieved. Reduction was to minimize the number of animals used in an experiment. In any experiment the number of animals required reflects the degree of precision and certainty thus no more than required number of animals should be used for experimentation. Repeated testing was to be avoided. And refinement was to adopt humanly procedures that cause the least pain and suffering to the animals. When it comes to refinement the most suitable approach is a multidiscipline team effort. Staff should be well aware of the pain and stress symptoms that animals suffer from. Scientists should be aware of the maximum threshold of the animal that it can bear to reduce the death chances. Artificial induction of diseases should be refined as much as possible(Hubrecht) . Other alternatives which are actually the implication of the 3Rs include the chemicals which were tested on rabbits for skin irritation reaction. The test took 14 days to complete. However when replaced with new test tube methods instead of rabbits it only required 42 hours.(Office) Later in November 2008, EU (European Union) proposed a revised directive that was based on the Rs principle theory. It put forward the alternatives that could be applied for the welfare of animals like animals used for the experimentation should be used with authorization of their custody. Animals of second or older generation to be used to avoid extinction from the wild, to reduce the suffering to minimum when subjected to experimentation.(Experimenting on animals). Another alternative mentioned used of mannequin models of animals where ever it could be used. Its a model made up of silicon that looks like rats. However this is not as accurate as it would have been on real rats but it manages to provide precise results. (Koken Rats). It reduces the number of rats that could be used in an experiment. Computer simulation is another alternative that is quite popular and advancing rapidly in today’s time. The use of pigs is now replaced by dummies and robots to be tested. The NRU (Neutral Red Uptake test) is a process used in replacement of rats where 3T3 cells are exposed to harmful effects of sun. MRI and autopsy is also an alternative to animal testing as it provides in depth impressions of human scan which enables the scientists to understand human in a more diversified way.(Nakate). Several institutes are build that are researching alternative ways to animal testing like: Center of Alternatives to Animal testing Canadian Council on Animal Care 3Rs Dr. Hawden Trust Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College UC Davis Center for Animal Alternatives. Despite the efforts there is no accurate and permanent alternative to animal testing. In 2008 the number of medical experiments involving animals accounted to 454000, the steepest increase in the number of animal testing since 1986 (Tetchell) . Conclusion: In conclusion from the arguments mentioned above, animal testing is inhuman and expensive. The statement by Leonardo De Vinci explains his point that human have become so ignorant towards animal killing that soon a time will come when humans would react similarly to man killings as both humans and animals share common grounds. Time has come when human should become responsible for their own diseases. Human are not so vulnerable creatures that they have to depend on animals to get tested for their response to drugs. The method is unreliable, inhuman and unjustified. Humans already is killing animals or using them for different purposes like food, meat but that is a need but testing for drugs on thousands of animals is not a need. This activity of scientists should totally be banned. Though measures are taken to develop alternatives but the killing rate increases every year too. We should not be ignorant to animals, science might progress but human race is moving backward with such an attitude Works Cited Algoe, Sara. "Animals should not be used for medical experimentation." "Argument Against Animal Testing." August 2003. Bantwal, Natasha. "Arguments Against Animal Testing." Barnett, Stephen .W. Manual of animal technology. UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. "British Medical Journal." (1954): 1195. contributors, (FARL). "French Animal Right League ." 2005. Darwin, C. The Expression of The Emotions in Man and Animals. 1873. Donaldson, Henry H. The Rat. Philadelphia: Winter Inst. Anatomy, 1924. Fox, Michael Allen. The Case for Animal Experimentation. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1985. Heim, Dr. Alice. 1978. Hubrecht, Robert. The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other. UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2010. Langley, Gill. Animal experimentation. Macmillan, 1989. Mark A. Suckow, Steven H. Weisbroth, Craig L. Franklin. The laboratory rat. n.d. Menache. "Vet calls for end to drugs testing on monkeys." 2010. Michael, Palmer. Moral Problems in Medicine. Cambrige: Lutherworth Press, 1999. Miller, Harlan B. Ethics and Animals. USA: Humana Press, 1983. Nakate, Shashank. "Alternatives to Animal Testing." 2010. Office, Stationery. "The revision of the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purpose." 2009. Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals. New York: Basil Blackwell Inc, 1985. Steinberg, Avraham. Encyclopedia of Jewish medical ethics. Israel: Feldheim Publishers, 2003. Tetchell, Peter. "The long fight against animal testing." 2009. Whishaw, Ian Q. The behavior of the laboratory rat. Oxford University Press, 2005. Read More