Animal Testing: Pros and Cons

    Uploaded by tybanks on Apr 19, 2005

Animal Testing

Introduction

The application of animals to test a large number of products from household compounds and cosmetics to
Pharmaceutical products has been considered to be a normal strategy for many years. Laboratory animals are
generally used in three primary fields: biomedical research, product security evaluation and education. (Animal
Experiments) It has been estimated that approximately, 20 million animals are being used for testing and are killed
annually; about 15 million of them are used to test for medication and five million for other products. Reports have
been generated to indicate that about 10 percent of these animals are not being administered with painkillers. The
supporters of animal rights are pressurizing government agencies to inflict severe regulations on animal research.
However, such emerging criticisms of painful experimentation on animals are coupled with an increasing concern
over the cost it would have on the limitation of scientific progress. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

Around the world, animals are utilized to test products ranging from shampoo to new cancer drugs. Each and
every medication used by humans is first tested on the animals. Animals were also applied to develop anesthetics
to ease human ailments and suffering during surgery. (Animal Experiments) Currently, questions have been raised
about the ethics surround animal testing. As a result several regulations have been put in place to evaluate and
control the animals being used for testing purposes. These regulations hope to ensure that such research is
carried out in a humanely and ethical manner. (Testing on Animals: A Patient’s Perspective) Acceptance of such
experimentations is subject to a lot of argumentation. As the statistics indicate animal testing is dangerous and
harmful, but medical research must continue. We need to find other testing techniques that are advanced in order
to eliminate this harmful process, till then all we can do is continue with our research.

Arguments for testing

The supporters of animal testing argue that if animal testing is eliminated, that many of the medications and
procedures that we currently use today would exist and the development of future treatments would be extremely
limited. They argue that humans have been assisted from the healthcare developments that have been based on
the benefits of animal research and testing for many years now. Supporters for animal testing argue that research
is justified because it assists in discovering ways to help people and other animals for the future. Surgery on
animals has assisted in developing organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques. Animal testing has also
assisted in developing vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB.
Development of antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments depend upon animal tests. They argue that
other testing techniques are not advanced enough. (Animal Experiments) The most radical progress in
reproductive medicine such as oral contraceptives, in vitro fertilization, hormone replacement therapy, etc., have
all been made possible by animal research. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs)

Medical procedures like measuring blood pressure, pacemakers and heart and lung machines were used on
animals prior to being tried on humans. Surgery techniques, like those to mend and eliminate bone diseases were
devised out of experimentation on the animals. Animal testing not only benefits humans but also helps other
animals, for example the heartworm medication that was devised from research on animals has assisted many
dogs. The cat nutrition has been better comprehended through animal research and has assisted cats to live
longer and healthier lives. (Animal Testing: Why Animals Are Used in Research?) Animal models for AIDS are
very important factors that are required to understand the biology of immuno-deficiency viruses in the vivo. This
allows us to raise necessary awareness about the processes of pathogenesis and its prevention by vaccination
and chemotherapy. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Those who support animal testing argue
that the society has an obligation to take actions in ways that will minimize injury and maximize benefits. Banning
or restraining the experimentation on animals would not allow society to achieve such results. It is assumed that a
scientist’s goal is to devise methods to minimize pain to every extent possible but for now we have to sacrifice on
animals to achieve this result. Activists against this practice portray scientists to be a society of crazy, cruel,
curiosity seekers. However, when one feeds painkillers to animals, one should ask where they came from and
what their purpose is. Is it to improve the quality of human life? (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

Those who support this procedure argue that the advantages that animal testing has brought to humans is
considered a lot greater in comparison to the costs in terms of the sufferings inflicted on comparatively less
number of animals. They argue that society is required to maximize the opportunities to generate such valuable
consequences even at the cost of inflicting pain to some animals. Moreover, many argue that the lives of animals
may be worthy of some respect, but the value we give on their lives does not count as much as the value we give
to human life. Human beings are considered living beings that have the capability and sensibility that is much
higher than animals. For example if we were put in a dilemma of saving a drowning baby and a drowning rat is it
almost definite that our instincts will guide us to save the baby first. Is it universally assumed that humans do not
treat the animals as our moral equivalents. In theory, any living thing is considered an animal if it is not a plant. (Of
Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

As humans it is assumed that we have a moral requirement to prevent any animals of unnecessary suffering.
However, as far as animal testing is concerned we are confronted with the moral dilemma of a choice between the
welfare of humans or the welfare of animals. Some supporters of animal testing argue that moral rights and
principles of justice apply only to human beings. Morality is considered as a social creation out of its eventual
process in which we do not associate animals. Moral rights and moral principles are applicable to those who are
part of the moral community generated by this social process. As animals are not part of this moral community
created by these social processes our moral obligations do not extend to cover them. However, we do have moral
obligations to our fellow human being that involve the liability to decline and prevent needless human suffering and
untimely deaths that in turn may entail the painful tests on animals. (Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small)

A review by the American Medical Association indicated that about 99 percent of active physicians in the US
believed that animal research has given rise to medical advancement, and about 97 percent supported the
persistent use of animals for basic and clinical research. (What Scientists Say About Animal Research) Scientists
found that there are no such differences in lab animals and humans that cannot be used in tests. The Research
Defense Society – RDS, a British organization instituted to defend animal testing, maintain that most of the
complaints made against animal testing are not found to be correct and that animal testing generates valuable
information about how new drugs react inside a living body. Tests are continued to detect major health problems
like liver damage, enhanced blood pressure, nerve damage or damage to the fetus. Research revealed that the
drugs can be distorted by digestion, and become less successful or more toxic and that such difficulties cannot be
examined by applying cell samples in test tubes. (Vivisection: Fact Sheet) If animal testing were to be outlawed it
would be impossible to attain the significant knowledge that is necessary to eliminating much suffering and
premature deaths for both humans and animals. (Animal Experiments)

Arguments against testing

The critics of animal testing base their argument on the grounds of morality, the necessity or the validity of this
procedure, whether proper authority to perform such tests is granted, whether such tests are actually needed and
whether such tests practically provide us with any useful information. The supporters of animal rights say that
animals have the right to live their own life peacefully; and we are not allowed to meddle with them just because
we can. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Deaths through research are considered unnecessary
and are morally not different from murder. Animal dissection is regarded as misleading. (Animal Experiments)
Arguments against animal testing may generate at least two different arguments. Some believe that the goals of
this type of testing are not significant. The blinding of rabbits to have a new kind of mascara is yet to be justified.
(Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Others argue that the reaction of an animal to a drug is quite
different than that of a human being. Animals are involved in testing the products such as cleaning products that
assist humans less than medicines or surgery. (Animal Experiments) The major disadvantage of animal testing
stated by John Frazier and Alan Goldberg of CAAT are “Animal discomfort and death, species-extrapolation
problems and excessive time and expense.” (Animal Testing Alternatives) Supporters refute this statement by
emphasizing that the brutal treatment of animals in tests is administered most of the time with anesthesia. (Animal
Testing Alternatives)

The fact that the results attained from experiments on animal testing do not accurately portray their influence on
humans is considered to be a one of the serious argument against the animal testing. Humans are quite different
from other animals, so the consequences of animal testing may not applicable to humans. They argue that they
way one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular way does not necessarily entail other species
will react in the same way. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) An Italian Professor Peitro Croce
has been fighting against animal testing for several years. The arguments he puts forth includes misleading results
of animal tests while they are applied to humans. Parsley is considered to be a deadly poison for parrots yet we
use it to flavor our food; Arsenic, a poison for humans but it is not harmful to sheep. Sheep, goats, horses and
mice can also eat hemlock in large numbers while this is toxic to the humans. Lemon juice is toxic to the cats. A
hedgehog can take a sufficient amount of opium can be taken by a hedgehog at one sitting but humans can’t
without the obvious effect. Morphine is regarded as an anesthetic for humans but if it is administered to cats; it
generates a state of frenzied excitement. (Vivisection: Fact Sheet) Vitamin C is not something dogs, rats,
hamsters and mice, have to worry about taking, for their bodies generate Vitamin C. If humans inhale a small
amount of prussic acid fumes it can kill them. However, toads, sheep and hedgehogs can drink it without any
harm; Scopolamine can kill humans with a dose of just 5 milligrams. To dogs and cats about 100 milligrams was
considered harmless. Information like this can be misleading when scientists try to determine safe dogages.
Penicillin, the first antibiotic, was experimented first on mice. Its application on guinea pigs would have entailed
dangerous consequences, because penicillin controls the floral bacteria in the stomachs of guinea pigs and
destroys them within a few days. The unpredictability of animal testing was thought to have harmful effect in the
case of fialuridine. This drug successfully passed its animal test phase without much difficulty. However, when it is
administered on fifteen human volunteers it resulted in severe liver damage, causing death to five of them and
compelling two others to have liver transplants.

The Medical Research Modernization Committee – MRMC, an American organization for doctors who are against
animal testing, argue that AIDS research in America has been very unproductive. Animals being infected with HIV
were not successful in developing symptoms quite similar to those humans develop when they have AIDS. Over a
decade more than 100 chimpanzees have been infected with HIV. But only two have become ill. The same
description continues to prescribe that AIDS may have been caused by vivisection, with monkey viruses being
mutated to form HIV whist generating a polio vaccine from baboon tissue. It is definitely true that 15 laboratory
workers in the US have been killed by the Marburg virus and other monkey viruses, and that there have been two
outbreaks of ebola in the US “monkey colonies.” (Vivisection: Fact Sheet) Critics continue to argue that animal
kept in unnatural conditions, or animals in pain or distress, are not giving rise to accurate or consistent results
anyway. Stringent regulations have not eliminated researchers from abusing animals even though such instances
are rare. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) As a result those against animal testing argue that
animal testing should be banned immediately.

My Stance:

The arguments for and against animal experimentation are going to continue for some time, both between the
general public and those directly involved. Those who oppose animal testing believe that all testing associated
with the use of laboratory animals should be banned immediately. However, one could argue by saying that a total
ban on the use of animals will prevent a great deal of basic medical research, and the possible production of
certain vaccines. No new medicines would develop and the safety of workers, the general public and patients
would be at stake. On the other hand, the supporters of animal testing say that humans have always benefited
from the health care developments that depended upon the accomplishments of animal research and would
continue to benefits from animal testing. However, some argue that testing for cosmetics and household materials
is not adequate enough to gain support for this argument. There is a lot of pain that these animals have to undergo
for testing; hence animal testing cannot be supported. But at the same time all animal testing cannot be banned
immediately because it is our only successful channel to develop medicines and cures. (Alternatives to Animal
testing on the Web: FAQs)

One cannot argue that all animal testing is useful in all cases but at the same time all animal testing cannot be
disqualified. Hence, I argue that it is essential to continue testing on animal until a truly effective alternative is
developed, but till then we can play our part in trying to cut down on animal testing. ‘Replacement’ is not always an
alternative. Some significant type of testing just cannot be done without animals, at least at this moment.
(Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) There are still no alleviation for many diseases – contagious
diseases like HIV/ AIDS, metabolic diseases like diabetes, and genetic disease like Cystic Fibrosis and
haemophilia. The necessity for a vaccine against HIV, Hepatitis C and many other infectious diseases is definitely
beyond doubt. (Testing on Animals: A Patient’s Perspective) Animal testing is morally questionable. It is bad and
wrong but pharmaceutical companies invest millions of dollars for research and to find cures. It is impossible for all
animal testing to be substituted in the immediate future and it will take time to devise other methods.

Studies are under way in trying to develop alternative methods of testing but they are still not developed enough.
Most of the scientists hope to lessen the use of laboratory animals being used today and apply a minimum number
of animals. Last year it was determined that the toxicity of a new substance was calculated to be ‘LD 50’ – lethal
dose 50%. The test used about 200 rats, dogs or other animals to be force-fed different animals. The current
variations in protocol have exerted a ban on the LD50 test, except in extraordinary conditions. Additionally, the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development entails that when a substance kills the first three
animals it is experimented on, further continuation of trials on them is considered irrelevant. In the 1970s, the
Netherlands applied 5000 monkeys per annum to form the polio vaccines. Now, the kidney cell cultures from just
10 monkeys entails sufficient information to find a vaccine for everyone in the country. Hormones or vaccines
produced in cell cultures are also purer than those formed within the animal themselves. This further decreases
the necessity for animal tests to verify the safety of the vaccines. (Animal Experiments)
Presently there are improved methods to form safe products for human consumption. The concept of alternatives
has been proposed. In W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch’s book ‘The Principles of Humane Experimental
Technique’. They mention three R’s as alternatives. It involves ‘Reduction in number of animals applied,
Refinement of strategies to minimize pain and distress to the animals, and Replacement of the animal model with
a non-animal standard or a species phylo-genetically lower’. (Why Conduct Literature Searches for Alternatives?)
Most of the large manufacturers of personal care and household products could implement strategies that are
considered cost effective, better predictors of human injury, produce far quicker results, and do not associated with
animal cruelty. (Animal Testing Alternatives)

Government and humanitarian agencies have financed researches into the substitutive strategies since the 1960s.
(Animal Experiments) Revlon Cosmetics has financed research studies for substitutions to animal testing. They
donated $750,000 to the Rockefeller University in 1979. Several agencies like the John Hopkins Center for the
Alternatives to Animal testing – CAAT, the International Foundation for Ethical Research, the Cosmetic, Toiletry
and Fragrance Association, and the Soap and Detergent Association followed the trend and initiated their own
projects in finding alternative solutions. (Animal Testing Alternatives) During the last 15 years, Germany has
granted about $8 million per annum in research grants, while the annual expenditure of Netherlands in these
regards is $2.6 million. The UK government has also acknowledged this cause and has spent nearly $4 million.
The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods was instituted in 1992 by the European
Commission, and grants about $12.4 million annually. (Animal Experiments) Indicating that progress is underway.

The most normal kinds of substitute strategies for animal testing are: in-vitro tests, computer software, databases
of tests already performed and even ‘clinical trial’ experiments on humans. Application of animal cells, organs, or
tissue cultures is also believed to be a substitute irrespective of the fact that animals are killed in order to use their
body parts. The particular tests are Eytex, Skintex, EpiPack, Neutral Red Bioassay, Testskin, TOPKAT, Ames test
and Agarose Diffusion strategy. Presently, in-vitro in contradiction to in-vivo has advanced as a result of
progresses in tissue culture methods and other analytical strategies. (Animal Testing Alternatives) The effective
substitution involves test tube studies on human tissue cultures, statistics and computer models. People can
substitute animals in some kinds of research. Skin sensitivity experimentation of cosmetics for example can draw
on human volunteers. Human clinical studies and epidemiological studies can find out a great deal about the
strategies of health and disease. The statistical design symbolizes one form of reduction substitute. The cost
effective statistical set of programs that exists now a days enables researchers to receive the most out the data
formed by each animal they apply and therefore require a fewer animals in aggregate. Researchers can also
share animals in order to reduce the number of killings. For example if a scientists needs to study the brain of a
rat, he can allow the other scientist to make use of the kidneys, or livers or parts for there concerned studies.

Horst Spielmann of ZEBET of the German center for animal testing substitutes has reviewed decades of industry
data on pesticides. He found out while mice and rats are reactionary to a chemical, it does not have to experience
further tests on dogs. Spielmann expects that about 70% of tests on dogs can now be successfully avoided. There
is a common attempt by researchers to use lab animals that are less prone to undergo the sensations of pain or
discomfort. In Canada, many studies have substituted mammals with fish and now researchers are even
attempting to apply bacteria in tests rather than the rats. Instead of shaving the back of an anaesthetized rabbit to
test a skin product, can we use “Corrositex” a synthetic material for the same purpose. Similar solutions ought to
be devised for many other kinds of experiments that presently use the animals.

Conclusion:

While there has been promise to find alternatives to animal testing, the best researchers can do for now is try to
reduce the number of animals being used. They can resort to new scanning technologies like magnetic
Resonance Imaging, which can assist doctors to learn about disease from human patients without the actual
necessity for invasive surgery, or animal experimentation. Computer models can be used to devise the reaction of
a drug to the animal, as a result it would eliminate the necessity for live animal experimentations. (Animal
Experiments) The development to the extensive application of substitutes to animal experimentation will
persistently gain momentum as people become more aware about the problem. Though it is hard to eliminate
animal testing completely, consumers can prevent the unnecessary animal testing by boycotting certain products
that don’t necessary require animal testing. To conclude, all we has humans can do now is to try to reduce the
number of animals being harmed in these experiments aimed at benefiting society.
Animals In Psychological Research
    Uploaded by Sherri on Dec 21, 2004

Animals In Psychological Research

An increasing number of researchers, scientists and practitioners are questioning the use of animals in research
on ethical, moral, socio-political and scientific grounds. Use of animal research data to affect change in their
patients is rarely used by clinical psychologists. This is certainly a public interest issue as it involves an enormous
amount of brutality. Animal research is a very lucrative business, since billions of tax dollars are invested in it
annually. An enormous amount of this money going towards researcher’s salaries, overhead costs, animal
husbandry expansion and building maintenance. These billions of dollars can be redirected to prevention, public
health programs, treatment and clinical research. There are too many missed opportunities for advancement in
psychology due to money spent on theoretical, repetitive and exploitative animal research. In our society we have
come to see that animal research is an easy way to stay alive in the “publish or perish” world of academia. Nearly
anything can be proven using animals as test subjects which is evident in the way that the tobacco industry still
claims that their research proves that cigarettes do not cause cancer. (Linder, 1998).
In spite of the fact that animal experimentation can be traced back as far as Galen (ca. 100 AD), its significance in
consumer safety and medical research and is a relatively recent phenomenon. In 1865, Claude Bernard published
his “introduction to the study of experimental medicine”, which marked the beginning of animal experimentation as
a scientific method of research. (Menache, 1998).
The industry has always been quick to exploit the less than conclusive results of animal tests, especially in fields
such as onconlogy. Consequently, the drug saccharin remains on sale to the public because it appears to cause
bladder cancer only in male rats. The ingestible contraceptive drug Depo-Provera was banned in the United States
over twenty years ago on the basis that is caused cancer in baboons and dogs. However, The Food and Drug
Administration and The American Health Regulatory Authority recently reinstated the drug because twenty years
of human experience in those countries, which did not prohibit its use, had convinced the Food and Drug
Administration that Depo-Provera did not cause cancer in humans. Another example that is even more bizarre is
the drug Tamoxifin, which is used to treat human breast cancer. Even though Tamoxifin reduces the incidence of
mammary cancer in rodents, it actually increases the presence of liver cancer in rodents, and appears to be also
toxic to the kidney (Menache, 1998).
Due to the unavoidable biological differences between human beings and animals, the results of animal tests can’t
be applied to human beings with any degree of confidence. At the 1989 scientific workshop held at the Ciba
Foundation past scientific director of Huntington Research Center (U.K.) stated that the best guess for the
correlation of extreme reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%. The
information translates into unacceptable risk levels for the general consumer public. To illustrate this point, the
General Accounting office in the United Stated reported that between the years 1976-1985, out of two hundred
medications introduced over that period of time, 51% were either withdrawn from the market completely or else re-
labeled, because of severe side effects not previously noticed.
The Food and Drug Administration has been faulted on animal drug data. In a report to Congress in 1992, the
General Accounting Office found that the Food and Drug Administration in many instances did not carry out
inspections to verify the accuracy of data given by private laboratories. Due to FDA’s incompetent management
the agency was unable to fulfill its task to protect the safety and health of animals and people (Menache, 1998).
Professional groups of medical doctors, like the Medical Research Modernization Committee, are now at the
cutting edge on the scientific movement advocating that animal tests be replaced with the new methodologies. In
addition to the priceless contributions to medical science of clinical observation, epidemiology, autopsy studies,
non-invasive scanning, we are now entering a new world of technologies involving tissue and organ cultures.
Furthermore, what is more important is the increasing availability of tissues of human origin, which will reduce the
margin of error even further, while compared with extrapolating results from animal tests to humans (Menache,
1998).
Ever since the Gulf War, an estimated twenty thousand returning U.S. soldiers have been experiencing a series of
mysterious illnesses. Symptoms included chronic fatigue, joint pain, rashes, hair loss, memory loss, lack of bowel
control and even brain damage. Disturbing repots of miscarriages, stillbirths, birth defects and death among the
babies conceived by the returning soldiers have also emerged. There is mounting evidence that the Desert Storm
Syndrome may be contagious. It has been learned that the American soldiers were exposed to experimental
vaccines, drugs and pesticides. On a daily basis the soldiers were required to take an experimental, anti-nerve
drug called Pyridostigmine Bromine. The drug was supposed to be a precautionary measure that would protect the
soldiers in case Saddam Hussein engaged in biological, chemical warfare. Additionally, the soldiers were given a
powerful insect repellent called DEET and the uniforms were also treated with another pesticide called Permethrin
(Supress, 1998).
It is obvious that the soldiers were exposed to countless chemicals such as nerve drugs, pesticides, depleted
uranium and possible other chemicals that we are not aware of. In addition they were also exposed to
experimental vaccines, drugs and pesticides. We already know why these problems have occurred, and that these
chemicals are responsible for these extremely serious health problems.
All of the chemicals mentioned above had been tested on different animals prior to their use on the soldiers.
Nevertheless, the animal tests were evidently not able to prevent the Gulf War veterans and their children from
becoming the real guinea pigs. It is a known fact that the military uses unknown numbers of animals to test all
kinds of weapons, including atomic bombs and its chemical and biological weapon arsenal. But it would be a
terrible mistake to assume that the military used only animals, and not humans, as guinea pigs. Over the last
decades it has been repeatedly revealed that our military has been caught red-handed conducting experiments
not only on thousands of unsuspected and no consenting United Stated soldiers but also on American civilians.
During the NBC program Now, entomologist James Moss, PH.D formerly with the United States department of
agriculture stated that he wanted to conduct a serious of experiments on rats for the Department of Defense. The
intend and purpose of this experiment was to expose the rats to the drugs, chemicals and pesticides that the
American soldiers were exposed to in order to see if the rats live or die. Why bother with animal experiments when
we already know what happened to human beings? The fact remains that, even if we didn’t know what happens to
humans, animal experiments will never be able to tell us anything about human conditions. Each species of animal
is a different biochemical entity and the results of such studies and experiments can’t be extrapolated from one
species to another. (Supress, 1998).
Stroke is a dominant cause of sickness and death. However as Dr. Robert Sharpe reports, it’s human studies that
hold the key to success, not animal studies. Human epidemiological studies have the power to save millions of
lives, showing that major advances can be achieved without animal experiments. Moreover, animal tests have a
dubious record in predicting useful drugs to combat the effects of a stroke. Animal researchers indicate that
barbiturates could protect against the effects on the stroke, experiments on dogs, rabbits, and monkeys. In human
stroke victims, however, barbiturates had little or no protective effect. By comparison, the drug nimodipine can
help people with a specific form of a stroke such as sub-arachnoids hemorrhage, but the animal data is conflicting
and inconsistent. In application with cats and baboons, for instance, nimodipine produced no overall beneficial
effect. Furthermore, as Dr.Sharpe states: “the leading cause of deaths in patients suffering form sub arachnoid
hemorrhage is cerebral vasospasm, a condition in which the blood vessels in the brain constrict. Human cerebra
blood vessels, obtained within twenty-hours of death, have been used to study the problem since little is known
about the underlying processes.”
(Supress, 1998, p. 3).
Researchers at the University of Gottingen stress the importance of human tissue since “there are considerable
advantage is the possible use of pathologically damaged vessels, for example, from atherosceletoric lesions,
which are more difficult to obtain from animals.” The researchers conclude that much needed improvements in
treatment can be expected from human tissue studies. (Supress, 1998 p.3).
The Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC) has reviewed scores of so-called animals “models” of
human diseases and found that they have little or no relevance to human health. Dr. Kaufman explains further that
what they found with the study of non-human diseases in non-human animals that it is a fundamentally unsound
methodology. (Kaufman, 1998).
Despite animal researchers routinely take credit for virtually every medical advance; a growing number of medical
historians are revealing that medical progress has rested on human clinical investigation, not animal research. The
most valuable medical research tools are clinical tools, such as autopsies, thorough observation of patient’s
conditions, tissue biopsies and epidemiology. (Kaufman, 1998)
The use of animals for research and testing is only one of many investigative techniques available. Dr. Barnard
believes that although animal experiments are sometimes intellectually attractive, they are poorly suited to
addressing the urgent health problems of our era, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, birth defects and AIDS.
In addition, animal experiments can mislead researchers or contribute to illness or deaths by failing to predict the
toxic effects of drugs. The U.S. General Accounting Office reviewed 198 of the 209 new drugs marketed between
years of 1976 and 1985 and found that 52% had “serious postapproval risks” not predicted by animal tests or
limited human trials. These risks were defined as adverse side effects that could lead to disability, hospitalization
or death. Consequently, these drugs had to be relabeled with new warnings or withdrawn from the market.
(Barnard, 1998).
Human population studies of HIV infection elucidated how the virus was transmitted and helped guide intervention
programs. Using human cells and serum in vitro studies allowed researchers to identify the AIDS virus and
establish how it causes disease. Many animals have been used in AIDS research, but without much in the way of
concrete results. For example, the extensively reported monkey studies using the simian immunodeficiency virus
(SIIV) under unnatural conditions suggested that oral sex presented a transmission risk. However, this study did
not help extrapolate whether oral sex transmitted HIV in humans or not. (Barnard, 1998).
Experimenters have been infecting chimps with the HIV virus since 1984. In spite of being infected with several
different strains of the virus, none have become clinically ill. Experimenters designed treatments to specifically
destroy the cells, which are thought to be most active in protecting the body from HIV infections. In addition to
 being co –infected with other viruses, which were presumed to help HIV gain a foothold. There are many
physiologic and anatomic differences between humans and chimpanzees. These differences make them a poor
“model” for humans. The differences in the chimpanzee and the human immune system are dramatic and
emphasize the impracticality of using these animals as a model for human AIDS. ( Tracher, 1998).
To predict human causes for birth defects has relied heavily on animal experiment. Although, these have typically
proved to be embarrassingly poor predictors of what can happen to humans. In nearly all-animal birth defects test,
scientists are left scratching their heads as to whether humans are more similar the animals that develop birth
defects or like those who do not. The rates for most birth defects are needed to trace possible genetic and
environmental factors associated with birth defects, just as population studies linked heart disease to cholesterol
and lung cancer to smoking. (Barnard, 1998).
The issue of what role, if any, animal experimentation played in past discoveries in not relevant to what is
necessary now for research and safety testing. Prior to scientist developed the cell and tissue cultured common
today, animals were routinely used to harbor infectious organisms. But there are few diseased for which this is the
case-modern method for vaccine productions are safer and more efficient. Animal toxicity tests to determine the
potency of drugs such as digitalis and insulin have largely been replaced with sophisticated laboratory tests that
do not involve animals. (Barnard, 1998).
The results of animal tests can’t be applied to human beings due to biological, physiological and anatomical
differences. In my opinion, we can’t rely on misleading and faulty information obtained from animal experiments.
Animal experiments put human health in risk and danger. Animal experiments showed to be useless in the past,
so why should “ we” exploit the animals? Why should we make them suffer and cause unnecessary pain? Good
science and scientist is an alternative to animal research.

References
Barnard, Neal. D., (1998). Animal Research Is Wasteful and Misleading. (On-line). Available:
htttp://www.sciam.com/0297issues/0297barnard.html
Kaufman, Stephen. R., (1998). Animal Tests Are Inapplicable. (On-line). Available:
http://www.uilwa.edu/vpr/research/animal/esalt/htm
Linder, Lorin, (1998). A Time To Re-Evaluate The Use Of Animals In Psychological Research. (On-line). Available:
http://home.mira.net/~antiviv/article1.htm
Menache, Andre, (1998). Animal Experimentation The Medico-Legal Alibi. (On-line). Available:
http://home.mira.net/~antiviv/article1.htm
Supress, (1998). Desert Storm Syndrome. (On-line). Available: http://home.mira.net/~antiviv/article1.htm
Tracher, Wendy, (1998). Tests Results That Don’t Apply to Humans. (On-line). Available:
http://www.pcrm.org/issues/Animal_Experimentation_Issues/chimps.html

Animal testing is the use of non-human animals for scientific experimentation. Animal testing has been
used since ages in the world in universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense
establishments and even commercial facilities. They help with subjects such as genetics, developmental
biology, behavioral studies, biomedical research, xenotransplantation etc.

The pros of animal testing are as follows:

- It helps in finding exact cure for human diseases.
- It plays a great role in economy.
- It helps a lot in scientific research.

The cons of animal testing are as follows:

- It is hazardous to lives of animals.
- It can be misleading as animals and humans are different.
- Animal testing procedures are painful for animals.

It is up to individuals to decide whether it is wrong or right based on its advantages and disadvantages.
However, I personally feel it is totally wrong and alternative procedures should be used in research.
=============

think that animal testing is 95% wrong and 5% right, (as long as animals aren't severely hurt or killed. If
that's the case then I say it's wrong 100%edly!!). It really depends on personal opinion, whether or not
you think it's good or bad though. I've done some research and I found valid information regarding both
sides.

PROS: saves many lives every year, scientists can learn more about the body, helped with complex
surgical techniques, products for humans are tested to be safe, money and effort is being put forth for
more humane techniques, almost every large medical discovery in the last 100 years has been found
with animal testing, it is vital to medical progression, led to life-saving vaccines for humans and animals,
a vaccine for AIDS has been found (for partial immunity), protects the public from chemicals that are
very harmful, etc...

CONS: the stress on animals could make some test results invalid, test animals have no freedom; forced
to suffer purposeful diseases, the alternatives could be dangerous to scientists and be less correct than
using an animal, the animals don't have a choice, repeated tests cause useless suffering, the U.S. Uses
15-20 MILLION animals a year for dissection and testing, animals can get permanently addicted to
harmful drugs, some labs keep animals in unsanitary conditions, wounds don't always get bandaged,
tests are limited, some things safe for animals are not safe for humans creating false security, 8.8% of
animals do not get pain relief (purposely put in pain for study), some animals bred with disease and
destines to die, animals can't communicate feelings with humans, can not always detect nausea,
headache, and depression in animals, etc...

                 ESTIMATIONS

animals on average suffer...

54%= no pain/minor pain

26%= moderate pain
20%= severe pain =(
             The decision is yours, but I hope this was helpful!! =D

The use of laboratory animals is important to three main areas: biomedical research, product safety
testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals to extend their understanding of the workings
of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for
various diseases. The research these people do isn¡¦t only for human benefit; it is also helping to develop
veterinary techniques. The industry uses animals to test the effectiveness and safety of many consumer
products, such as cosmetics, household cleaning products, pesticides, chemicals, and drugs. Educators,
from elementary school all the way up to college, use animals as parts of the teaching process, including
dissecting worms, and frogs in science classes to medical students using animals to learn surgical
techniques. Scientists study animals to learn more about certain species: its history, its psychological and
social behaviors, and its skills. If the animals are kept in captivity, they can be caused pain that isn¡¦t
natural part of its environment. A number of organizations wish to replace and reduce the number of
animals being used or, at the very least, lessen the pain.

Stop animal testing - it's not just cruel, it's

ineffective
By Kelly Overton

June 23, 2006 The pharmaceutical industry and the National Institutes of Health
spend billions of dollars annually on medical research techniques that have been
rendered obsolete by technological advances.

Adult stem cell research is key to our status as the world's leader in medical
research. The continued use of animals to test the effectiveness of medications and
health interventions for humans is akin to using smoke signals instead of e-mail as
a method of communication.

Animal testing has never really worked. Animal tests proved penicillin deadly,
strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous.

In fact, 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later
proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. It is humbling to realize
that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much
cheaper. Animal-tested drugs have killed, disabled or harmed millions of people
and lead to costly delays as well. Among the most publicized are the delays of a
polio vaccine by over three decades and a four-year delay in the use of protease
inhibitors for HIV treatment - after animal testing showed these interventions to be
useless.

We have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice, but so far have failed to
replicate human cancer in any animal, let alone close in on a cure. All but a very
few diseases are species-unique, and the only efficient and effective way to
discover cures and create vaccines is through the use of the same species' cells,
tissues and organs.

The use of animals as models for the development of human medications and
disease almost always fails, simply because humans and animals have different
physiologies.

Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no
complications or failures related to tissue rejection. In fact, international
researchers using adult stem cells - cells that are present in all growing human
tissue - have shown success in treating cardiac infarction, Crohn's disease and
thalassemia. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be
found by using stem cells and other modern technologies, not by cutting up
beagles.

Most Americans tolerate vivisection because they believe that it is a necessary evil.
It is evil, but it's not necessary. Whether vivisection is morally right or wrong no
longer matters: It is as obsolete as eight-track tapes, telegrams and bloodletting. It
is time the public stopped funding this antiquated science, through tax dollars and
research and development costs imbedded in prescription prices.

It may even be time to consider lawsuits aimed at pharmaceutical companies that

continue to profit by charging patients, insurance companies and the state and
federal governments for medications and treatments based on such flawed and
antiquated research. These lawsuits could rival the tobacco lawsuits of the past
decade, with individuals and states seeking damages for the cost of caring for those
killed or disabled by dangerous medicines.

Regardless of one's feelings about animals, it is time for consumers and taxpayers
to realize that vivisection wastes hundreds of millions of dollars annually and
produces an inferior product.
The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology, public health
improvements, epidemiology, human clinical research, human autopsies,
mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome, not experiments
on animals.

The NIH must take responsibility for ensuring the United States maintains its
status as the world's leader in health care innovation, a position that guarantees our
country's future economic strength and protects the world from the growing threat
of biological terrorism. This responsibility begins by ensuring that the research
funded with Americans' tax dollars uses the most modern technology and
methodology.

Whether you will live a full life or die early probably depends on today's medical
research. Researchers have proved ad infinitum that hitting a beagle on the head
with a hammer causes trauma and forcing monkeys to smoke gives them cancer.

It's time to insist that they stop harming defenseless animals and wasting our
precious health care dollars so they can get busy saving our lives by embracing
technologies that work.

Kelly Overton is executive director of People Protecting Animals and Their

Habitats in Cambridge, Mass. His e-mail is knophangan@aol.com.

Copyright © 2006, The Baltimore Sun <http://www.baltimoresun.com>