There is a growing concern over the use of animal testing the medical research field. Different views have been fronted by proponents and opponents of the practice on how ethical the practice is. It is true that animals have contributed to some successful medical research in the world; however, the number of animals used in wasteful and non-beneficial research works raises concern. According to Dolgin 1348, it is, therefore, essential to consider the benefits and demerits of using animals in research before the experiments are done to avoid tests that are wasteful.
The proponents of animal testing support their position based on some reasons. Animal testing has contributed to the discovery of some drugs that have been very useful in saving human lives. According to McShane and Ann 105, the president of Federation of American Societies for Experimental Research (FASEB) Dr. Robert Palazzo once said: "Americans are living longer, and healthier lives and we owe much of that success to biomedical research." Some of the drugs that have been discovered through animal testing include those used in treating cancer, vaccines for a variety of diseases such as measles, anti-retroviral drugs, and many others. Animal testing has played an essential role in improving the health conditions of human beings. Many drugs that are used by human beings are as a result of animal testing. The positive aspects of improving human health have been one aspect that increased support for animal testing in medical research. Animal testing plays a key role in improving the safety of drugs.
Before drugs are used by human beings, they are tested on animals to check on how safe they are if they are used on human beings. This has contributed to reduced side effects of drugs on human beings because the ones that show negative side effects are not released for human use. The possible harm of dangerous drugs on human beings is reduced when such drugs are first tested on animals. Scientists who use animals in their research work for medicine argue that they are the only organisms that are similar to human beings. The founder of the polio vaccine Albert Sabin once mentioned that "Without animal research, polio would still be claiming thousands of lives each year."
There are some grounds under which the use of animal testing should be allowed in my opinion. One such ground is when there is no any other method of testing drugs except the use of animals. According to McGonigle and Bruce 162, it is essential if the scientists embrace different approaches to testing drugs before they can opt for animals because animals are essential organisms on earth and have a life similar to that of human beings. They should only come in as an alternative in drug testing where other forms of testing have failed. If the benefits to be obtained from using animals in testing are more than the loss of animals to be used, under such circumstances animal testing should be used.
` Animals should be used in drug testing if the amount of suffering to be encountered is reduced. There is a lot of cruelty done to animals used in testing without regard to them having a life similar to that of human beings.As mentioned in DiMasi, Henry and Ronald 20, scientists should devise measures to help reduce the suffering of animals used in medical research.If animal testing is to be embraced in medical research, there is a need for proper regulation of the practice from the relevant authorities to ensure that there are no wasteful experiments. Only about 25 new drugs are allowed for human use on average in a single year whereas there are more than 100 million animals are used in medical testing.
Some of the arguments against the use of animals in drug testing include the unreliable tests that are usually reported by scientists and other health organizations. More than 90% of the drugs tested using animals in many cases fail in human beings. Some of the negative effects caused by drugs tested on animals indicated no effect during the experiments. According to Mak, Nathan and Michelle 114, there is a possibility of drugs having negative effects on human beings despite showing positive effects when tested in animals. The use of different animals such as the mice which are commonly used in drug experiments is reported to be about 40% accurate. This indicates that there are high chances of inconsistencies if the researchers relied on the animal testing only. A high number of animals are used in medical research, but very few drugs are approved to be used in medical treatment. This shows a lot of waste for animals in the name of experiments.
Proper regulations need to be put in place to help reduce cases of wasteful experiments in animal testing. A lot of money is invested in the drug test industry, but very little is coming out of it regarding new drugs. Many of the companies involved in drug test research have not registered even a single drug with the regulating bodies. For example in the United States, studies indicate that less than 10% of companies involved in drug tests have submitted a drug to the drug and food administration despite the existence of about 5000 companies involved in the research(Leist et al. 341). This is an indication of how animals are misused for experiments and research works that do not give any positive outcomes. The drugs that have been approved for human use from the experiments have proven to be partially effective. The use of animals in experiments does not guarantee universality of the effectiveness; it is, therefore, essential for researchers to embrace other forms of experiments in their studies. Many tests that are positive in animals do not guarantee effectiveness in human beings. More than 90% of stroke treatments have failed in human beings after testing positive in animals. Drugs such as Vioxx have been cited to cause more than 300,000 heart attacks and increase the chances of stroke in human beings.
Works Cited
DiMasi, Joseph A., Henry G. Grabowski, and Ronald W. Hansen. "Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs." Journal of health economics 47 (2016): 20-33.
Dolgin, Elie. "Animal testing alternatives come alive in US." Nature medicine 16.12 (2010): 1348-1348.
Leist, Marcel, et al. "Consensus report on the future of animal-free systemic toxicity testing." Alternatives to Animal Experimentation: ALTEX 31.3 (2014): 341-356.
Mak, I. W., Nathan Evaniew, and Michelle Ghert. "Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment." Am J Transl Res 6.2 (2014): 114-8.
McGonigle, Paul, and Bruce Ruggeri. "Animal models of human disease: challenges in enabling translation." Biochemical pharmacology 87.1 (2014): 162-171.
McShane, Helen, and Ann Williams. "A review of preclinical animal models utilised for TB vaccine evaluation in the context of recent human efficacy data." Tuberculosis 94.2 (2014): 105-110.
