There are about 26 million animals used every year to test theories for science and products (Animal-testing.procon.org). Researchers use live animals to see how they react to chemicals in their systems (Toxicology.org, 2016). This helps determine safe doses for drugs and treatments for overdoses and assists in evaluating toxicity in organs such as the liver, respiratory system, and the immune system (Kacew and Lu, 2013). There are other ways to perform tests for immunocompetence including test tube methods, computer programs, databases on patients, genetic testing, imaging, and giving humans small doses (Neavs.org, 2016). However, these methods are not as effective as using living animals. In the fields of medicine and physiology, 98 Nobel Prizes have been awarded and 75 of the studies stated conclusions were based on animal experimentation. Four of the remainder did not use animal testing directly, but used information gathered from other studies that did use them (Scutti, 2013). Over 1000 scientists in the field of biomedicine were surveyed in 2011 by Nature science journal and more than 90 percent think that using animals in research is absolutely necessary (Cressey, 2011).
It can be upsetting to think about the ordeals animals may need to go through in order to provide vital data for scientists to use safe human trials, but there are steps that have been taken to provide ethical treatment of research animals. Research facilities must have a committee of three representatives for the animals, one of which is not connected with the facility (Awic.nal.usda.gov, 2016). Practices have to be sound and trauma reduced as much as possible (Nasonline.org, 2016) and research facilities are attempting to reduce animal testing as much as possible by using some of the testing methods previously mentioned.
References
Awic.nal.usda.gov. (2016). Home | Animal Welfare Information Center. Awic.nal.usda.gov.
Retrieved 18 May 2016, from http://awic.nal.usda.gov/
Cressey, D. (2011). Animal research: Battle scars. Nature, 470(7335), 452-453.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/470452a
Kacew, S., and Lu, F. (2013). Lu's basic toxicology. London: CRC Press.
Nasonline.org. (2016). National Academy of Sciences. Nasonline.org. Retrieved 18 May 2016,
Neavs.org. (2016). In Testing | Alternatives to Animal Testing and Research. Neavs.org.
Retrieved 18 May 2016, from http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing
Scutti, S. (2013). Animal Testing: A Long, Unpretty History. Medical Daily. Retrieved 18 May
2016, from http://www.medicaldaily.com/animal-testing-long-unpretty-history-247217
Toxicology.org. (2016). The Importance of Animals in Research. Toxicology.org. Retrieved 18
May 2016, from https://www.toxicology.org/about/history/docs/poster_ press/91x42_AIR_poster_press.pdf
