Animal experimentation promotes the disrespect of life on planet Earth, and should not be permitted. Many argue that the role of experimenting on animals reinforces cancer research, helping to bring cures to people with all kinds of terrible diseases. Is this true or just an excuse for lazy science? The fact of the situation is that ethics matters. Animals matter. In one article, whose title is unmentionable, deals with ethical approval of research experimentation on both human beings and animals. The two Canadian researchers insist that discussing animal research-testing incurs a lot of legally binding and ethical issues (Tremayne-Lloyd, and Srebrolow, 56). This paper undertakes an investigation about animal experimentation. First, it is necessary to review the opinion that persuades people to ignore ethics in experimental testing on animals.
Some would argue that animal experimentation is required to perform medical research for the beneficial treatment (or cures) of harmful diseases, and conditions in humans being. Those advancing this type of thinking often pull at people’s emotions or claim that certain disease cures must involve animal experimentation. For example, the article from ‘Testing Perspectives’ explains “Stopping experimentation on animals” under the auspices of the EU would not mean that European people (as patients) would give up usage of their drugs, that were developed with the utilization of harmful animal experimentation (“Animal Testing in Orphan Drug Development”). But the insinuation deems a relocation of the situation wherein less strict countries (in whatever regions) implement slackened regulations (“Animal Testing in Orphan Drug Development”). In other words, this article published by ‘Animal Testing Perspectives’ is saying that just because those living in Europe are ingesting pharmaceutical drugs that have been developed from animal experimentation – that it does not matter if animals are being subjected to cruelly unjustified experimentation, in the name of science. They claim that the problem would not go away, but simply relocate to countries with less punitive standards or regulatory ethics, and therefore it does not matter. Follow the logic of this reasoning. This concept represents wrong thinking. The idea is like saying: If we do not engage in animal experimentation, abuse, and torture – somebody else will. What kind of sense does this make?
Animal experimentation must be completely banned from the planet Earth. An overview of the facts informs you why animal testing procedures are unnecessary, and cruel to living beings. According to PETA, the worldwide renowned organization for animal ethics, “more than 100 million animals” each year are slaughtered inside of United States’ biological laboratories – either for medical-school lessons and training,” or simply for producing cosmetics-tests, or for the “curiosity-driven” (“Animal Experiments”). Perhaps the cruelest of all animal experimentation is driven by the curious-minded sort. These practices must be stopped. PETA goes on to describe the torture inflicted onto the poor little creatures before they die. According to PETA, organized ‘research’ and animal experiments involve all sorts of species including birds, dogs, cats, rats, frogs, monkeys, hamsters, and fish. Torturous abuses in animal experimentation involve burning, suffocation, and having their skulls drilled into – making holes while they are still alive! PETA says, sometimes “others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours,” while other animals are gassed to death with toxic fumes, to painfully die, and suffer a disgraceful demise. These practices must cease. {Above photo: Courtesy of PETA}.
In one informative website dedicated to exploring the issues around animal testing, called ‘Animal-Testing.ProCon.org,’ a listing of facts are offered. One fact they list tells that the majority of animals used in experimentation (95%) are not protected by the federal legislation of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). For this reason laboratories of medicine and sciences freely and boldly utilize all manner of warm-blooded animals. The report also states that “A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical” professional scientist-type people (done by the Nature published journal), “found that more than 90% agreed” about the wrongdoing of animals in research (“Should Animals Used Scientific Commercial Testing?”). Once again the reasoning posits an argument that signifies if a majority of lab scientists agree it’s ‘okay,’ then it must be okay. In other words, go along with the majority opinion since it’s profitable to sustaining ‘our’ research dollars and ‘funding’ despite the engagement in evil, unethical acts against living creatures who did you no harm. See the problem? If you may be wondering about the sheer numbers of animals killed via experimentation, the following statistics compile recent estimates. According to ProCon.org “Minnesota used more cats for testing than any other state (2,703), New Jersey used the most dogs (6,077), and Massachusetts used the most primates (7,458)” (“Should Animals Used Scientific Commercial Testing?”). It is important to understand the numerical documentation because, in this way, campaigns may be organized specifically around the types of animals, and the concentrated locale of where they are systematically being experimented upon. By the way, the above mentioned statistics derived from the year 2010. The information is current.
In opposition to the claim documented in the preceding paragraph, that scientists need animals to conduct their so-called ‘essential’ research, common sense must challenge this false notion. For example, it is common knowledge that in an effort to find a cure for cancer, research has be going on many decades. Many people around the world have been freed from the symptoms of cancer by ingesting a whole-food, organic plant based diet and natural vitamin C therapy. However, in the United States it is illegal to make such medical claims for a cancer cure involving the use of natural herbs and plants. Another argument supporting the use of animals in experimentation states that many outcomes in medical breakthroughs have come from this activity. The argument articulates that “many life-saving cures and treatments” have established a positive track record for using animal experimentation methods. While this may be true, cancer has certainly not been one of the miracle cures thus achieved today in 2014. Another argument pro-animal experimentation uses is that laws exist designed to prevent abuses of animals. However, the statistics shown above regarding animal testing in the states of Minnesota, New Jersey, and Massachusetts reflect otherwise.
One compelling argument in support of animal experimentation describes the factor that whole-life, body-system living organisms are required to study the effects of biological anomalies. But the weakness of this argument constructs a false ideology. The weakness proclaims that modern science is incapable of reproducing a proper cellular environment. This simply is not true. The truth is that today’s modern science can simulate a complex electrolyte-balanced ‘mini-organism’ in a petri dish. In fact, a ProCon.org article states “Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals,” and amazingly that microdosing “the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed” (“Should Animals Used Scientific Commercial Testing?”). Although the issue assigns ethics and morality concepts to bear, political will, accountability, and increased laws could make a difference in the mitigation of senseless killings of countless animals.
Oddly enough, a pair of Canadian researchers assess the possibilities of instating better laws to protect animal cruelty in experimentations, and human experimentation. Tracey Tremayne-Lloyd and Dr. Gary Srebrolow discuss that Canada “has no overarching
statutory structure regulating ethics for human experimentation,” as compared to laws in the United States and France strictly adhering to prohibitions about human experimentation (56). Even though they primarily defend against the unethical practice of human experimentation, they also stand against cruelty to animals and endorse greater ‘health law’ protocols to improve the situation. They maintain that if the proper legal restraints are in place, then “legal and professional liability” will “arise from human and animal testing” (57). A critical point needs to be made at this juncture. Animals provide so much support for human life to prevail on this earth, we have a moral and ethical obligation to protect from all manner of cruelty and torture as much as possible. We humans rely on them for food, clothing, and protection and assistance in unique ways. For example, guide dogs for the blind and police dogs in the military show two major areas in which animals aid human comfort.
An article published in the British Journal of Cancer, entitled “Guidelines for the use of cell lines in biomedical research” comments on the usage of animal participation for scientific purposes. In it they explain that, in terms of cell lines being derived from animal lines, the biomedical practice in the UK uses animals for research purposes under regulations “by
the Home Office and must comply with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Home Office, 2012)” which is designed to protect animal welfare (Geraghty, Capes-Davis, Davis, Downward, Freshney, Knezevic, Lovell-Badge, Masters, Meredith, Stacey, Thraves, And Vias 1031). The problem is nobody can truly measure how effective in practice – not theory – the regulations are. Perhaps the most comprehensive set of facts, statistics, and probably pro-active solutions to the situation of stopping animal experimentation is found in the organization PETA. addresses two important sub-topical issues about cruelty to animals: (1) Funding and Accountability, and (2) Oversight and Regulation. Additionally they discuss real-life proactive means of getting involved to make your voice heard to put an end to animal torture and experimentation.
In the framework of its ‘Oversight and Regulation’ section, PETA says that there are approximately 11,000 facilities regulated by the United States government, entrusted to operate under the legal rubric to protect animals’ welfare. But the problem is oversight and enforcement. It is stated that “only 120 USDA inspectors are employed to oversee their operations” (“Animal Experiments”). In other words, what this means is there are too few enforcement agents employed to effectively regulate whether legal standards are being met in each facility. Therefore you have a situation in which literally thousands of facilities are potentially getting away with needlessly killing and torturing animals by the hundreds every day. Knowledge has power. And any person armed with this knowledge can directly make a difference by attacking the lack of law enforcement in this area.
PETA documents another crucial bit of evidence why animal experimentation in labs are not even effective. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies” (“Animal Experiments”). In the simplest language, studying animal organisms does not accurate predict biological outcomes in human beings. The data is clear and yet animal experimentation continues to this very hour. PETA attacks the area of ‘Funding and Accountability’ by stating that the public, though often unaware, financially support the practice. Awareness then, holds the key to helping solve the problem. The PETA article continues with “through their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the public are ultimately the ones” responsible for propping up this cruel industry (“Animal Experiments”). Surprisingly, too, many reputable charities like the March of Dimes, and the American Cancer Society use donations to contribute funding towards animal experimentation.
In conclusion, what can you do? PETA, once again instrumental in understanding the scope of animal experimentation, says that virtually all federal monies support the practice with citizens’ dollars. In two words: Write letters. Tell legislators you demand that this violently inhumane and cruel practice not be supported with your tax dollars. Be polite when addressing public officials. And let them know, via PETA recommendations, that “Funding for research into health and ecological effects should be redirected into the use of epidemiological, clinical, in vitro, and computer-modeling studies instead of laboratory experiments on animals” (“Animal Experiments”). The link to where the PETA article appears shall be included in the ‘Works Cited’ page of this paper, along with the address and name whom to contact at the National Institutes of Health.
Works Cited
“Animal Experiments – Overview.” Peta.org PETA – People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2014. *{Link: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/animal-experiments-overview/ }
Geraghty, R J, and A Capes-Davis, J M Davis, J Downward, R I Freshney, I Knezevic, R Lovell-
Badge, J R W Masters, J Meredith, GN Stacey, P Thraves, and M Vias. “Guidelines for
the use of cell lines in bioimedical research.” British Journal of Cancer 111 (2014):
1021-1046.
“The role of animal testing in orphan drug development.” Animaltestingperspectives.org Animal
Testing Perspectives, Nov. 22, 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
“Should Animals Used Scientific Commercial Testing?.” Animal-testing.procon.org
ProCon.org – Animal Testing Pros and Cons, 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Tremayne-Lloyd, Tracey, and Gary Srebrolow. “Research Ethics Approval for Human and
Animal Experimentation: Consequences of Failing to Obtain Approval – Including Legal
and Professional Liability.” Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association 51.1
(2007): 56-60. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
