All around the world, millions of animals are put in cages and stuck with needles in order to see the effects of certain products and medications. Medical testing on animals is a controversial topic. However, most people cannot deny that testing on living animals is a moral issue that our society needs to address. In this paper, I will present reasons why medical testing on animals is immoral, show how medical testing benefits humans more than animals, and give alternative methods that can be used in the place of animals. Only by addressing the problem can we as human take the necessary steps to ban medical testing on animals.
Every year, millions of mice, rabbits, cats, dogs, primates, other invertebrates as well as vertebrates are used for medical testing purposes. These animals are used in private or public laboratories, universities, non-profit organizations, government facilities, and institutions around the globe. According to the American Anti-Vivisection Society, some of the types of animal testing performed are as follows are “Eye Irritancy, Acute Toxicity, and Pyrogenicity”. These tests are performed so that scientist could study the animals’ reaction to certain chemicals and products. It is believed that any negative reaction an animal displayed is a sign that the product could potentially be harmful to humans as well. Some testing on animals such as Genetic Engineering is used conduct studies that will ultimately lead to an improvement on human life.
It could be argued that morality means something different to every individual. One person may find testing on all animals to be unethical and immoral. Another person could make the argument that the use of certain animals such as mice should be allowed. Furthermore, it could be argued that the use of a live test subject would be more beneficial for research purposes. Since more people are against using humans as test subjects, animals are the only other alternative when it comes to live testing. Additionally, it is known that many animals have benefited from the research done by scientists who used other animals. Cures for rabies and feline leukemia probably would never have been found if it was not for animal testing. There are rules and regulations that each research facility needs to follow when they conduct research on animals.
While some people may argue that animals kept for research purposes are treated well. Other people such as those who run the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAV) argue the opposite. According to their website, "[a]nimals in labs live stressful, monotonous, and unnatural lives of daily confinement and deprivation." (NEAV) Often, the animals are in captivity from birth to death. The animals are usually stuffed into small, overcrowded cages. Many of these animals are never allowed to live a proper life or see the outside of the research facilities. There are a few facilities that allow their research animals to have sunlight and fresh air. However, this is done by placing the caged animals outside. Many times, even placing animals outside in cages is not enough for them. The animals develop stress and trauma related issues such as the continuous biting of open wombs.
Many times the research facilities do not have the staff that has knowledge on how to properly care for their animals. There have been many undercover videos and photos taken by whistleblowers at the cost of their jobs that shown some workers of research facilities abusing the animals in their care. In some of the materials, experimenters are seen performing experiments or surgery on conscious animals. Also, the aftercare for the animals is minimal to none. Such treatments add to the unnecessary suffering of animals.
It is a known fact that scientists have been using animals for medical testing purposes for many centuries. Many of the results of these testing can be misleading to the public. According to Dr. Richard Klausner, director of the National Cancer Institute, "We have cured mice of cancer for decades--and it simply didn't work in humans." (Cimons et al.) The genetic differences between human and animals are too vast to successfully create a cure each and every time medical testing is done. Furthermore, animals and humans react differently to certain disease and illnesses.
Moreover, products that are tested and revealed as being safe in animals have been known to be harmful to humans during clinical trials. According to PETA's website, "Vioxx, Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol, Selacryn and many other drugs have had to be pulled from the market in recent years because of adverse reactions suffered by people taking these drugs". (PETA) PETA further points out that "[d]espite rigorous animal tests, prescription drugs kill 100,000 people each year, making them our nation's fourth-biggest killer." (PETA) These product recalls and deaths lead many to question why experimenters do not experiment on humans instead of using animals. Furthermore, the dosage an adult human may need of a medicine is a lot more than what a mice or guinea pig may need. Since experimenters are viewing the effects of the drugs during the experimental stage, it is in the clinical stage, that scientists truly know the real effect of their products.
There are many educated people who believe that animal testing is needed. Nature.com had conducted a survey which included a thousand biomedical scientists. The participants who agree that animal testing is necessary were 90%. Only 16% of the poll participants had mixed feelings. Many pro animal testing activists have pointed out those medical breakthroughs that were found by conducting tests on animals benefit humans as well as animals.
While we, as humans, owe a lot of medical discovery to animals, the continued use of animals in experiments for medical testing purposes can no longer be justified. The Humane Society International website stated, "[m]any disease areas have seen little or no progress despite decades of animal research." (HSI) In recent times, scientists have learned more about the workings of the human body than ever before. Finding alternative methods for medical testing is crucial. As pointed out by the Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania website, there are some testing methods that do not require animals and are less expensive. Some of these methods include the "use of cell and skin tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models”. (Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania)
Using computers to simulate the disease or illness would be better than using an animal. Computer programmers can use all the data about the human body that scientists have collected to create a program that is as accurate to a live human body as possible. As stated before, due to the genetic differences between animals and humans, medical testing has come across some compatibility issue between their products and humans. Since data about the human body is used, there would be little to no compatibility issues with the product that needs to be tested and humans. As time goes on, computer programs will become more sophisticated; computer testing of medical products will get more accurate.
While there are a few people may not agree, the majority of society believes that medical testing on animals is immoral. Many people would agree with this especially after they have seen pictures or videos on how certain experiments are conducted. Additionally, the treatment of animals in experimental facilities is usually terrible. Most often, animals are kept in cramped cages from birth to death. Due to the differences in genetics, human and animals are incompatible which makes medical testing on animals unnecessary. Companies should find alternative methods for testing their products.
Works Cited
"About Animal Testing : Humane Society International." Humane Society International : Humane Society International. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.hsi.org/campaigns/end_animal_testing/qa/about.html>.
"Against Animal Cruetly Tasmania (AACT) - Product Testing on Non-Human Animals." Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania (AACT) Home Page. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.aact.org.au/testing.htm>.
"Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint | Animals Used for Experimentation | The Issues." PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/>.
Cimons, Marlene, Josh Getlin, and Thomas H. Maugh II. "Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men - Los Angeles Times." Los Angeles Times Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/06/news/mn-46795>.
Cressey, Daniel. "Animal research: Battle scars : Nature News." Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110223/full/470452a.html>.
"Harm and Suffering | Animal Use in Research." New England Anti-Vivisection Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Oct. 2014. <http://www.neavs.org/research/harm-suffering>.
"Testing." American Anti-Vivisection Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://aavs.org/animals-science/how-animals-are-used/testing/>.
