Abstract:
For every medicine, for every poison, for every food or anything that would entail human use or consumption; there would always be a test subject that would make sure it is safe for use, consume or dispose. While there are human trial tests in laboratories nowadays to test new strains of medicine, food or scientific improvement; scientists would often test their theories in animals if they would produce positive results that would be advantageous for humans. Nowadays, the issue on continuing animal testing in laboratories for whatever use has been questioned by animal rights groups and concerned citizens to the unethical treatment done to test animals. There are also the studies done that shows it is not right to use animals for human-related experiments as they may showcase irregularities that may not be similar to human reaction. However, supporters in using animals for laboratory testing showcase immense possibilities and benefits in terms of improving medicine, food, poison and treatment procedures. While animals, like humans, must not be forced to undergo pain even if it is for the betterment of all living things, it is undeniable that animal testing or experimentation in laboratories had provided benefits to all living beings, especially in terms of prolonging life.
For every medicine, for every poison, for every food or anything that would entail human use or consumption; there would always be a test subject that would make sure it is safe for use, consume or dispose. It is crucial to have a test subject due to the possible side-effects and consequences of using, digesting or disposing the test specimen that may arise once the product is launched to the market. Companies and scientific organizations would often utilize tests in two stages for their products: animal test or experimentation and the human tests. Animal tests or experimentation is often done first to ensure that the intended result of the product sample would not produce any complications upon the human tests. However, there are groups calling for the end of animal testing and experimentation as it is against the rights of animals to be tested despite its benefits for all life forms. While animals, like humans, must not be forced to undergo pain even if it is for the betterment of all living things, it is undeniable that animal testing or experimentation in laboratories has provided benefits to all living beings, especially in terms of prolonging life.
History of Animal Testing and Animal Rights Issues. Since the time of the Greeks, animal testing and experimentation had already enlightened many ancient scientists as to how the world works and the causes of certain phenomena in the human and animal body. Almaeon of Croton was cited the first person to perform vivisection in 450 BC, severing the optic nerves of a dog’s eye to explain blindness. Many did not take Almaeon’s experiment positively as the public saw it as a gruesome activity that dealt cutting a living being. Nonetheless, doctors in the period were enlightened by the experiment as it allowed them to prevent blindness in the public. Known Greek philosophers Aristotle and Erasistus also performed animal testing, specifically vivisection, to explain the causes of several illnesses. Romans also utilized animal testing as noted in 129-150 BC when Claudius Galen studied nerves and muscles and how they function in the body. He dissected several animals to identify the nature of nerve endings and muscles. Most scientists nowadays hailed Galen as the Father of Vivisection with his accurate findings on the body and his procedures for Vivisection. A century later, British surgeon William Harvey utilized animal vivisection to understand blood and blood vessels, especially on how they flow and how they influence the body. Europeans found Harvey’s work a revolutionary discovery as it was a method that could enable them to understand new strains of diseases or plagues. It was also a significant development for medicine since the animal tests also contributed to resolving mysterious effects of medical procedures for the body .
However, with the benefits being reaped from animal testing and experimentation came opposition as the 1950s fostered the birth of animal rights groups. These groups called for the rights of animals as they must not be used as specimens for scientists. The first animal rights organization was known as the Animal Welfare Institute, established in 1951. Aside from the AWI, another group was established in 1954, and they were known as the Humane Society of the United States. In addition to these animal rights groups, several researchers and writers such as William Russel and Rex Burch showcased their opposition to animal testing through their book “The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique”. The book detailed the three main Rs to consider regarding the issue on animal testing: replacement of animals, reduction of animal specimens, and refinement of experiments to reduce the pain experienced by the specimen. In 1966, the US Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act to regulate animal testing in laboratories around the country, may it be for personal or scientific use. With the act put into force in 1970 and amended in 1985, scientists and researchers have slowly stopped utilizing animal tests that would constitute maximum pain for the animals. Several procedures had been done by the scientific community to make sure that animals tested in minimum pain. The AWA is seen as a major milestone for the animal rights activists as it would ensure safety for animals. However, what made the most change in animal testing and experimentation is the Peter Singer book entitled “Animal Liberation” in 1975. The book enabled animal rights groups and antivivisectionist groups to fight for full animal rights to the government. Nowadays, the number of animals utilized for animal testing and experimentation in laboratories has decreased since the enactment of the Animal Welfare Act. However, researchers, especially those who have assisted with the AWA, noted that animals still remain an asset for scientific research. Cures for diseases, as well as discovering how diseases develop are now easily understood through the use of animal testing and experimentation. New medical techniques are also developed throughout animal testing and even assurance that new products are safe for public. While animal rights groups have often stated that it is inhumane to use animals for research, scientists continue to stand in their position that it is crucial to use animals in improving life .
Misleading Test Results. Studies have noted that animal testing is often prone of misleading scientists with test results. In one journal written by David Wiebers from the Mayo Clinic in 1990, he cites a study which showed 25 compounds that were used to reduce damages caused by ischemic stroke amongst rodents, cats, and other animals which have been used for the test. However, upon testing the 25 compounds to the human trials, none of the compounds produced similar results. Researchers from the study noted that there is a difference between a human stroke and animal stroke, especially how they are triggered. They explained that healthy animals that experience sudden stroke do not undergo slow and progressive artery damage, which commonly plays a key role in human stroke. Older studies, such as those done in the 1920s up to the 1960s also showcase misleading results due to animal use for laboratory tests. In a study related to lung cancer, the study done in 1960 first deduced through animal experimentation that lung cancer is not acquired through second hand smoking, however, tumor is most likely to develop. However, later studies showcased that the 1960 study caused a delay in administering government warnings in smoking and advising current smokers of its effects.
With regards to the safety of drugs and chemicals, animal studies provide conflicting results. In a 1988 study cited that experiments in testing carcinogenicity of 214 compounds showcased only 70% of the possibility of the item or drug to be cancerous. Scientists then noted that the correlation of rodent results to humans could be lower than the test. However, while many of the chemicals have been proven safe for consumption and gotten the approval of the FDA, they are later proved to be extremely dangerous. Fialuridine, for example, was seen safe in animal trials; however, it caused liver failure for seven out of the 15 humans who have been asked to take the drug. Five of the human patients even died due to the medication, while the other two were placed on liver transplant procedures. Nomifensine, an antidepressant, was first seen to cause small bouts of toxicity in rats, rabbits and monkey tests. However, it had caused patients to caused fatal or severe effects which forced the company to remove the product in 1985. The mistakes shown in these various drugs and tests have caused the US General Accounting Office to review all 209 introduced drugs since 1976 to 1985. The results of the review showcased that 52% of the drugs were seen with serious risks that was not predicted by any animal or human trials. The risks that had been noted were severe hospitalization and even death. Drugs were eventually relabeled with new warnings and were recalled. Considering the mistakes that had been fostered by these drugs, many have stressed that it would be hard to estimate as to how many potential drugs were abandoned due to the inconsistencies in animal tests .
Poorly designed and analyzed test results. Animal testing and experimentation are poorly designed, conducted and how it is analyzed; thereby increasing the risks of misleading and inaccurate results. According to the studies noted by various researchers, there are several studies, which were done in poor quality, thus contributing to the misleading results of animal tests. In one example, the clinical trials done for nimodipine, medicine for acute stroke was found by experts to lack convincing evidence for its capacity to cure the disease in question and begin the clinical trials for the drug. Reviews to the nimodipine animal trials also lack in methodological quality, especially on how it was assessed and the possible outcomes for the study. Another problem on the quality of animal tests is also seen in the study done regarding stress and coronary heart disease. In the animal study on monkeys regarding stress and coronary heart disease, it is noted that there is no actual evidence that would point out that social status has an influence in contracting the illness. The implications of such poorly designed animal experiments can contribute as to how treatments must be done in clinical trials, opening risks for human testing in terms of its content. Validation of such animal tests is needed to ensure that both humans and animals would be safe from the tests .
Presence of Alternative Test Methods. There are also arguments that there are alternative methods in improving medicine and for scientific methods that do not need animals for use. Some of the techniques researchers and scientists could use are the following: cell extracts, in vitro tissue and organ studies, computer-assisted modeling, human test subjects who have agreed to undergo noninvasive procedures, and plant substitutions. However, the most prominently used alternative to animal testing is the use of in vitro procedure. Many cite that animal testing itself is hugely expensive, and time consuming, thus the need to find cheaper and systematic means to conduct tests. In vitro procedures for testing are required to be informative and predictive like the in vivo tests currently done. While it may be cheap and politically acceptable that it would not cause issues, the in vitro method is still a new procedure that would need some explaining and background. Knowing the capacity of in vitro testing in terms of toxicity and carcinogenicity would ensure that in vitro tests are valid and done accurately .
Immorality of using animal testing. Finally, the major argument of opponents to animal testing in laboratories is the moral rights of animals and the fact that they must not be done as it also brings pain to the animals. Opponents see animal testing as an attempt to become “god”, a sin that people try to do to escape pain and improve them. Humans, according to activities, have no right to use animals for the sake of improving life as animals also have their own rights. Activists such as the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA noted that per day, millions of animals have been forced to experience necessary pain from tests that should not be done to them. Some of the experiments, according to the group, could be considered wasteful and cruel as it does not contribute to the improvement of life. Several cases have been cited to show how animals have been treated by scientists for their trials. In one instance, pregnant rabbits were given cocaine to showcase how drug use would affect the baby and the mother. Eventually, the rabbits died of shock. In another instance, monkeys from the Institute for Behavioral Research in Maryland were discovered by authorities to have reduced the number of their tribe, and fostered several wounds that looked severe. They also exhibited heavy signs of trauma and anger due to induced stress and trials. It is also questionable as to how scientists would use animals to test everything, such as testing football helmets and place them under a container filled with pollutants until they die. Some studies were also done without much scientific material such as those done in Rockefeller University wherein animals were forced to vomit up to 97-times in three hours after severing the brain and the spinal cord. These and many others have been noted by animal rights groups to be the reason which is why animal testing must no longer be practice .
Supporting Animal Testing
Animal testing helps Medicine. Supporters of animal testing, mostly the scientific community, pointed out that animal testing had already presented various benefits to the field of medicine. In one example, Louis Pasteur studied how infectious diseases were contracted by domestic animals by performing vivisection on chickens to check their guts, and to locate the infective microbe that caused the disease. Culture samples were then given to healthy chickens and rabbits, resulting to the animals also contracting cholera and confirming Pasteur’s hypothesis that it is microorganisms which causes diseases like cholera and anthrax. It was through the isolation of microbes in animals that allowed Pasteur to develop his own version of a vaccine to stop the disease. His findings immediately became known in the globe and scientists followed his example in creating vaccines for various infectious diseases. Vaccines for Hemophilius Influenzae type B or the key cause of meningitis in 1993 were tested in rabbits and mice. Upon the introduction of the vaccine, almost 70% have been reduced from the infections caused by Hib. In recent years, animal cell culturing enabled scientists to locate cures for polio and for new strains of diseases.
Animal testing fosters creation of new medical procedures and treatment. There is also a vital benefit on using animals for testing especially as scientists are enabled by animal testing to develop new types of treatment and medical procedures. Open-heart surgery, an operation that has saved countless lives in various nations around the globe was the result of a 20 year study on animals by experts like John Gibbon of Jefferson Medical Colleges. Experts concentrated in animal research to understand possible procedures to put additional treatment in the heart directly such as replacement heart valves. Kidney treatments have also benefited from animal testing as it constitutes the identification of the ailment, and the development of the drug heparin. Heparin, the essential drug needed for dialysis, was developed by extracting animal tissues and tested on animals which are anesthetized. Organ transplants are also done first on animals to understand the possible risks involving transfer and stitching .
Animals are best alternatives to test products and medicine procedures. Scientists have argued that animals are best alternatives to test items due to their capacity to reflect human reaction and their capacity to reproduce. For Toxicology, animal testing aids experts as animals, such as rats and rabbits, are suitable to understand toxicity of chemicals and how it is affected upon intake. Toxicology studies often deal with various types of concentrations that would need to be a match to human levels. Using rodents for toxicity tests are also inexpensive as compared to other types of test subjects. Rats, for example, have a short reproductive cycle, and could produce large numbers of offspring . Animals are also mostly used of testing as they could easily exhibit physical effects of chemicals used or received from the environment as compared to humans. Animal skin is also capable of showing all possible risks of exposure from all types of chemicals found in society and reflect the possible effect it has on humans. Animals are also the best choice in testing as they could be tested in a controlled environment and be monitored without problems. In some studies, elderly animals have been used to understand chemical reactions . Finally, animal testing is crucial in ensuring product safety and saves lives. Testing chemicals on animals first enables scientists to see the risks of chemicals or drugs to the body before introducing in to the market. Without utilizing several tests and possible assessment of drugs, it may cause severe risks for patients and for the environment. Since products could not be sold in the market without testing, lab animals would try out toxicity levels, physical side-effects of the product, carcinogenicity tests and mutagenicity of products to ensure that no side effects would ensue .
Conclusion
As of the present time, the debate on animal testing continues to be an issue between the scientific community and the animal rights groups for its legality and benefit. On the one hand, animal testing presents possible risks that may be detrimental to the health of humans who would take the word of tests that are possibly done in poor structure and with subjects that are not strictly human. Plus, there is also the difference between human anatomy and structure with the animal anatomy and structure. On the other hand, animal testing provides scientists mediums to use to understand possible medical and scientific breakthroughs that could improve human, animal and plant life. There is also the capacity of animal testing to serve as a foundation in helping humans understand how the body works. It is also impossible to have improved medicine in its present form without the help of animal testing. It is crucial to consider that humans have already benefited from animal testing and the fact that animals themselves are also capable of feeling pain like humans. It may be possible that, with the constant animal experimentation and test, animal breeds may slowly diminish. Nonetheless, animal testing could be done without the need for too much pain and killing as scientists could incorporate techniques that could substitute for the killing and pain segment of the procedure.
Works Cited
Barnard, Neal and Stephen Kaufman. "Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading." Scientific American. New York: Nature Publishing Group, February 1997. 79-93. Print.
Botting, Jack and Adrian Morrison. "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine." Scientific American. New York: Nature Publishing Group, February 2007. Print.
Farage, Miranda, Kenneth Miller and Howard Maibach. Textbook of Aging Skin. New York: Springer, 2010. Print.
Gupta, Ramesh. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology. London: Academic Press, 2011. Print.
Hayhurst, Chris. Animal Testing: The Animal Rights Debate. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. Print.
Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation: A Guide to the Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Print.
Newkirk, Ingrid. "Animal Testing is Cruel and Does Not Benefit Medical Research." Mut, Cindy. Animal Experimentation. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2004. 28-33. Print.
Pound, Pandora, et al. "Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?" British Medical Journal 328.7438 (2004): 514-517. Print.
Suillivan, John and Gary Krieger. Clinical Environmental Health and Toxic Exposures. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, 2001. Print.
Watson, Stephanie. Animal Testing: Issues and Ethics. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2009. Print.
