This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
(Animal Experiments) The major disadvantage of animal testing stated by John Frazier and Alan Goldberg of CAAT are ³Animal discomfort and death. 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. Some believe that the goals of this type of testing are not significant. many argue that the lives of animals may be worthy of some respect. Animal dissection is regarded as misleading. Tests are continued to detect major health problems like liver damage. 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. As animals are not part of this moral community created by these social processes our moral obligations do not extend to cover them. Animals are involved in testing the products such as cleaning products that assist humans less than medicines or surgery. (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. enhanced blood pressure. Arsenic. species-extrapolation problems and excessive time and expense. In theory. 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. a poison for humans but it is not harmful to sheep. Is it universally assumed that humans do not treat the animals as our moral equivalents. However. Morality is considered as a social creation out of its eventual process in which we do not associate animals. (Animal Experiments) Arguments against testing The critics of animal testing base their argument on the grounds of morality. but the value we give on their lives does not count as much as the value we give to human life.number of animals. 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. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) Deaths through research are considered unnecessary and are morally not different from murder. 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. nerve damage or damage to the fetus. Lemon juice is toxic to the cats. so the consequences of animal testing may not applicable to humans.´ (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. 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. and become less successful or more toxic and that such difficulties cannot be examined by applying cell samples in test tubes. the necessity or the validity of this procedure. and about 97 percent supported the persistent use of animals for basic and clinical research. Humans are quite different from other animals. A hedgehog can take a sufficient amount of opium can be taken by a hedgehog at one sitting but humans can¶t . (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. any living thing is considered an animal if it is not a plant. Sheep. The arguments he puts forth includes misleading results of animal tests while they are applied to humans. horses and mice can also eat hemlock in large numbers while this is toxic to the humans. Some supporters of animal testing argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings. whether proper authority to perform such tests is granted. (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. Moreover. Parsley is considered to be a deadly poison for parrots yet we use it to flavor our food. a British organization instituted to defend animal testing. Human beings are considered living beings that have the capability and sensibility that is much higher than animals. (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. The supporters of animal rights say that animals have the right to live their own life peacefully. The blinding of rabbits to have a new kind of mascara is yet to be justified. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) An Italian Professor Peitro Croce has been fighting against animal testing for several years. Research revealed that the drugs can be distorted by digestion. However. The Research Defense Society ± RDS. whether such tests are actually needed and whether such tests practically provide us with any useful information. (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. goats. (Animal Experiments) Arguments against animal testing may generate at least two different arguments. Moral rights and moral principles are applicable to those who are part of the moral community generated by this social process. and we are not allowed to meddle with them just because we can.
and that there have been two outbreaks of ebola in the US ³monkey colonies. It is definitely true that 15 laboratory workers in the US have been killed by the Marburg virus and other monkey viruses. If humans inhale a small amount of prussic acid fumes it can kill them. dogs or other animals to be force-fed different animals. Morphine is regarded as an anesthetic for humans but if it is administered to cats. However. Scopolamine can kill humans with a dose of just 5 milligrams. both between the general public and those directly involved. Some significant type of testing just cannot be done without animals.´ (Vivisection: Fact Sheet) Critics continue to argue that animal kept in unnatural conditions. In the 1970s. It is bad and wrong but pharmaceutical companies invest millions of dollars for research and to find 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. The necessity for a vaccine against HIV. the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development entails that when a substance kills the first three animals it is experimented on. Those who oppose animal testing believe that all testing associated with the use of laboratory animals should be banned immediately. and the possible production of certain vaccines. hence animal testing cannot be supported. one could argue by saying that a total ban on the use of animals will prevent a great deal of basic medical research. toads. The current variations in protocol have exerted a ban on the LD50 test. . Most of the scientists hope to lessen the use of laboratory animals being used today and apply a minimum number of animals. Over a decade more than 100 chimpanzees have been infected with HIV. rats. (Testing on Animals: A Patient¶s Perspective) Animal testing is morally questionable. the first antibiotic. the kidney cell cultures from just 10 monkeys entails sufficient information to find a vaccine for everyone in the country. The same description continues to prescribe that AIDS may have been caused by vivisection. when it is administered on fifteen human volunteers it resulted in severe liver damage. because penicillin controls the floral bacteria in the stomachs of guinea pigs and destroys them within a few days. 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. with monkey viruses being mutated to form HIV whist generating a polio vaccine from baboon tissue. No new medicines would develop and the safety of workers. Its application on guinea pigs would have entailed dangerous consequences. the general public and patients would be at stake. Animals being infected with HIV were not successful in developing symptoms quite similar to those humans develop when they have AIDS. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) There are still no alleviation for many diseases ± contagious diseases like HIV/ AIDS. But at the same time all animal testing cannot be banned immediately because it is our only successful channel to develop medicines and cures. and genetic disease like Cystic Fibrosis and haemophilia. Now. On the other hand. metabolic diseases like diabetes. for their bodies generate Vitamin C. To dogs and cats about 100 milligrams was considered harmless. but till then we can play our part in trying to cut down on animal testing. The test used about 200 rats. µReplacement¶ is not always an alternative. However. However. at least at this moment. (Vivisection: Fact Sheet) Vitamin C is not something dogs. are not giving rise to accurate or consistent results anyway. further continuation of trials on them is considered irrelevant. causing death to five of them and compelling two others to have liver transplants. This drug successfully passed its animal test phase without much difficulty. It is impossible for all animal testing to be substituted in the immediate future and it will take time to devise other methods. But only two have become ill. sheep and hedgehogs can drink it without any harm. Information like this can be misleading when scientists try to determine safe dogages. an American organization for doctors who are against animal testing. Last year it was determined that the toxicity of a new substance was calculated to be µLD 50¶ ± lethal dose 50%. argue that AIDS research in America has been very unproductive. Stringent regulations have not eliminated researchers from abusing animals even though such instances are rare. Hepatitis C and many other infectious diseases is definitely beyond doubt. Hence. Additionally. hamsters and mice. have to worry about taking. (Alternatives to Animal testing on the Web: FAQs) As a result those against animal testing argue that animal testing should be banned immediately. Penicillin. or animals in pain or distress. There is a lot of pain that these animals have to undergo for testing. My Stance: The arguments for and against animal experimentation are going to continue for some time. The unpredictability of animal testing was thought to have harmful effect in the case of fialuridine. some argue that testing for cosmetics and household materials is not adequate enough to gain support for this argument. The Medical Research Modernization Committee ± MRMC. it generates a state of frenzied excitement.without the obvious effect. Studies are under way in trying to develop alternative methods of testing but they are still not developed enough. except in extraordinary conditions. the Netherlands applied 5000 monkeys per annum to form the polio vaccines. However. was experimented first on mice. I argue that it is essential to continue testing on animal until a truly effective alternative is developed.
Russell and R.Hormones or vaccines produced in cell cultures are also purer than those formed within the animal themselves. Researchers can also share animals in order to reduce the number of killings. They donated $750. (Animal Experiments) Revlon Cosmetics has financed research studies for substitutions to animal testing. The statistical design symbolizes one form of reduction substitute. and the Soap and Detergent Association followed the trend and initiated their own projects in finding alternative solutions. and grants about $12. Burch¶s book µThe Principles of Humane Experimental Technique¶. In W. he can allow the other scientist to make use of the kidneys. many studies have substituted mammals with fish and now researchers are even attempting to apply bacteria in tests rather than the rats. There is a common attempt by researchers to use lab animals that are less prone to undergo the sensations of pain or discomfort. databases of tests already performed and even µclinical trial¶ experiments on humans. For example if a scientists needs to study the brain of a rat. The UK government has also acknowledged this cause and has spent nearly $4 million.S. . They mention three R¶s as alternatives. the Cosmetic. (Animal Experiments) Presently there are improved methods to form safe products for human consumption. It involves µReduction in number of animals applied. Several agencies like the John Hopkins Center for the Alternatives to Animal testing ± CAAT. People can substitute animals in some kinds of research. Though it is hard to eliminate animal testing completely. which can assist doctors to learn about disease from human patients without the actual necessity for invasive surgery. computer software.4 million annually. Similar solutions ought to be devised for many other kinds of experiments that presently use the animals. The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods was instituted in 1992 by the European Commission. 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. Instead of shaving the back of an anaesthetized rabbit to test a skin product. and Replacement of the animal model with a non-animal standard or a species phylo-genetically lower¶. EpiPack. the best researchers can do for now is try to reduce the number of animals being used. He found out while mice and rats are reactionary to a chemical. Skintex. Neutral Red Bioassay. statistics and computer models. Computer models can be used to devise the reaction of a drug to the animal. Refinement of strategies to minimize pain and distress to the animals. (Animal Experiments) Indicating that progress is underway. (Animal Testing Alternatives) During the last 15 years. while the annual expenditure of Netherlands in these regards is $2.M. Human clinical studies and epidemiological studies can find out a great deal about the strategies of health and disease. Toiletry and Fragrance Association. (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. can we use ³Corrositex´ a synthetic material for the same purpose. better predictors of human injury. the International Foundation for Ethical Research.000 to the Rockefeller University in 1979. it does not have to experience further tests on dogs. Skin sensitivity experimentation of cosmetics for example can draw on human volunteers. produce far quicker results. The most normal kinds of substitute strategies for animal testing are: in-vitro tests. (Animal Testing Alternatives) Government and humanitarian agencies have financed researches into the substitutive strategies since the 1960s. They can resort to new scanning technologies like magnetic Resonance Imaging. In Canada. organs. or animal experimentation.L. consumers can prevent the unnecessary animal testing by boycotting certain products that don¶t necessary require animal testing. This further decreases the necessity for animal tests to verify the safety of the vaccines. or livers or parts for there concerned studies. Application of animal cells. Testskin. Germany has granted about $8 million per annum in research grants. Spielmann expects that about 70% of tests on dogs can now be successfully avoided. The concept of alternatives has been proposed.6 million. (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. The particular tests are Eytex. TOPKAT. in-vitro in contradiction to in-vivo has advanced as a result of progresses in tissue culture methods and other analytical strategies. and do not associated with animal cruelty. 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. Horst Spielmann of ZEBET of the German center for animal testing substitutes has reviewed decades of industry data on pesticides. Ames test and Agarose Diffusion strategy. (Animal Testing Alternatives) The effective substitution involves test tube studies on human tissue cultures. Conclusion: While there has been promise to find alternatives to animal testing. To conclude. 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. as a result it would eliminate the necessity for live animal experimentations. Presently.
its significance in consumer safety and medical research and is a relatively recent phenomenon. Disturbing repots of miscarriages. especially in fields such as onconlogy. The industry has always been quick to exploit the less than conclusive results of animal tests. 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. 51% were either withdrawn from the market completely or else re-labeled. non-invasive scanning. chemical warfare. Use of animal research data to affect change in their patients is rarely used by clinical psychologists. 1998). socio-political and scientific grounds. the soldiers were given a powerful insect repellent called DEET and the uniforms were also treated with another . (Linder. autopsy studies. like the Medical Research Modernization Committee. Claude Bernard published his ³introduction to the study of experimental medicine´. 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. joint pain. public health programs. In 1865. Additionally. In a report to Congress in 1992. 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.K. out of two hundred medications introduced over that period of time. the results of animal tests can¶t be applied to human beings with any degree of confidence. stillbirths. scientists and practitioners are questioning the use of animals in research on ethical. which will reduce the margin of error even further. epidemiology. It has been learned that the American soldiers were exposed to experimental vaccines. which did not prohibit its use. In addition to the priceless contributions to medical science of clinical observation. The Food and Drug Administration has been faulted on animal drug data. while compared with extrapolating results from animal tests to humans (Menache. There is mounting evidence that the Desert Storm Syndrome may be contagious.Animals In Psychological Research Uploaded by Sherri on Dec 21. Animal research is a very lucrative business. the drug saccharin remains on sale to the public because it appears to cause bladder cancer only in male rats. Consequently. birth defects and death among the babies conceived by the returning soldiers have also emerged. it actually increases the presence of liver cancer in rodents. An enormous amount of this money going towards researcher¶s salaries. animal husbandry expansion and building maintenance. rashes. On a daily basis the soldiers were required to take an experimental. The drug was supposed to be a precautionary measure that would protect the soldiers in case Saddam Hussein engaged in biological. Even though Tamoxifin reduces the incidence of mammary cancer in rodents. drugs and pesticides. repetitive and exploitative animal research. 1998). what is more important is the increasing availability of tissues of human origin. (Menache. Due to the unavoidable biological differences between human beings and animals. because of severe side effects not previously noticed. At the 1989 scientific workshop held at the Ciba Foundation past scientific director of Huntington Research Center (U. This is certainly a public interest issue as it involves an enormous amount of brutality. hair loss. overhead costs. lack of bowel control and even brain damage. Another example that is even more bizarre is the drug Tamoxifin. we are now entering a new world of technologies involving tissue and organ cultures. which marked the beginning of animal experimentation as a scientific method of research. The information translates into unacceptable risk levels for the general consumer public. since billions of tax dollars are invested in it annually. treatment and clinical research. 100 AD). and appears to be also toxic to the kidney (Menache. There are too many missed opportunities for advancement in psychology due to money spent on theoretical. anti-nerve drug called Pyridostigmine Bromine. However. 2004 Animals In Psychological Research An increasing number of researchers. To illustrate this point. Ever since the Gulf War. 1998). Professional groups of medical doctors. 1998). memory loss. had convinced the Food and Drug Administration that Depo-Provera did not cause cancer in humans. These billions of dollars can be redirected to prevention. are now at the cutting edge on the scientific movement advocating that animal tests be replaced with the new methodologies.) stated that the best guess for the correlation of extreme reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5% and 25%. which is used to treat human breast cancer. the General Accounting office in the United Stated reported that between the years 1976-1985. moral. 1998). Furthermore. In our society we have come to see that animal research is an easy way to stay alive in the ³publish or perish´ world of academia. In spite of the fact that animal experimentation can be traced back as far as Galen (ca. 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. an estimated twenty thousand returning U. The Food and Drug Administration and The American Health Regulatory Authority recently reinstated the drug because twenty years of human experience in those countries. soldiers have been experiencing a series of mysterious illnesses. Symptoms included chronic fatigue.S.
even if we didn¶t know what happens to humans. depleted uranium and possible other chemicals that we are not aware of. Human population studies of HIV infection elucidated how the virus was transmitted and helped guide intervention programs. 1998. chemicals and pesticides that the American soldiers were exposed to in order to see if the rats live or die.´ (Supress. Despite animal researchers routinely take credit for virtually every medical advance. In addition they were also exposed to experimental vaccines. the extensively reported monkey studies using the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIIV) under unnatural conditions suggested that oral sex presented a transmission risk. The intend and purpose of this experiment was to expose the rats to the drugs. However as Dr. (Supress. not animal studies. (Kaufman. Human epidemiological studies have the power to save millions of lives. Animal researchers indicate that barbiturates could protect against the effects on the stroke. animal experiments can mislead researchers or contribute to illness or deaths by failing to predict the toxic effects of drugs. they are poorly suited to addressing the urgent health problems of our era. birth defects and AIDS. (Kaufman. but the animal data is conflicting and inconsistent. The most valuable medical research tools are clinical tools. 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. including atomic bombs and its chemical and biological weapon arsenal. Robert Sharpe reports. In human stroke victims. tissue biopsies and epidemiology. Experimenters have been infecting chimps with the HIV virus since 1984. But it would be a terrible mistake to assume that the military used only animals. a growing number of medical historians are revealing that medical progress has rested on human clinical investigation. Researchers at the University of Gottingen stress the importance of human tissue since ³there are considerable advantage is the possible use of pathologically damaged vessels. which are more difficult to obtain from animals. In application with cats and baboons. 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. Using human cells and serum in vitro studies allowed researchers to identify the AIDS virus and establish how it causes disease. showing that major advances can be achieved without animal experiments. (Barnard. 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. PH.S. During the NBC program Now.pesticide called Permethrin (Supress. not animal research. However. thorough observation of patient¶s conditions. Many animals have been used in AIDS research. and not humans. 3). 1998).3). (Barnard. 1998). barbiturates had little or no protective effect. for instance.Sharpe states: ³the leading cause of deaths in patients suffering form sub arachnoid hemorrhage is cerebral vasospasm. such as cancer. as guinea pigs. experiments on dogs. For example. These risks were defined as adverse side effects that could lead to disability. All of the chemicals mentioned above had been tested on different animals prior to their use on the soldiers. General Accounting Office reviewed 198 of the 209 new drugs marketed between years of 1976 and 1985 and found that 52% had ³serious postapproval risks´ not predicted by animal tests or limited human trials. The Medical Research Modernization Committee (MRMC) has reviewed scores of so-called animals ³models´ of human diseases and found that they have little or no relevance to human health. hospitalization or death. animal experiments will never be able to tell us anything about human conditions. the drug nimodipine can help people with a specific form of a stroke such as sub-arachnoids hemorrhage. drugs and pesticides. 1998). as Dr. pesticides. By comparison.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. these drugs had to be relabeled with new warnings or withdrawn from the market. heart disease. and that these chemicals are responsible for these extremely serious health problems. 1998) The use of animals for research and testing is only one of many investigative techniques available. 1998). entomologist James Moss. it¶s human studies that hold the key to success. Moreover. a condition in which the blood vessels in the brain constrict. It is obvious that the soldiers were exposed to countless chemicals such as nerve drugs. nimodipine produced no overall beneficial effect. 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. Furthermore. animal tests have a dubious record in predicting useful drugs to combat the effects of a stroke. Nevertheless. Human cerebra blood vessels. stroke. obtained within twenty-hours of death. 1998 p. for example. Barnard believes that although animal experiments are sometimes intellectually attractive. The U. Consequently. this study did not help extrapolate whether oral sex transmitted HIV in humans or not. from atherosceletoric lesions.´ The researchers conclude that much needed improvements in treatment can be expected from human tissue studies. but without much in the way of concrete results. In addition. 1998). Stroke is a dominant cause of sickness and death. rabbits. Dr. have been used to study the problem since little is known about the underlying processes. such as autopsies. p. (Supress. We already know why these problems have occurred. Dr. Why bother with animal experiments when we already know what happened to human beings? The fact remains that. In spite of being infected with several . and monkeys. however.
physiological and anatomical differences. Neal.html Kaufman. (Barnard. The results of animal tests can¶t be applied to human beings due to biological. (1998).htm Menache.uilwa. Available: http://home. if any. (Barnard.net/~antiviv/article1.htm Tracher. 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. Animal experiments put human health in risk and danger.. Available: http://www. Animal Experimentation The Medico-Legal Alibi. These differences make them a poor ³model´ for humans. A Time To Re-Evaluate The Use Of Animals In Psychological Research. Animal testing has been used since ages in the world in universities. defense establishments and even commercial facilities.It helps a lot in scientific research. 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. Tests Results That Don¶t Apply to Humans. ( Tracher. Animal experiments showed to be useless in the past. (On-line). Animal Tests Are Inapplicable. these have typically proved to be embarrassingly poor predictors of what can happen to humans. In nearly all-animal birth defects test. References Barnard. so why should ³ we´ exploit the animals? Why should we make them suffer and cause unnecessary pain? Good science and scientist is an alternative to animal research. Andre. (1998). Available: http://home. The rates for most birth defects are needed to trace possible genetic and environmental factors associated with birth defects. The issue of what role. just as population studies linked heart disease to cholesterol and lung cancer to smoking.net/~antiviv/article1.mira. 1998). which were presumed to help HIV gain a foothold. Available: htttp://www. (On-line). Animal Research Is Wasteful and Misleading. animal experimentation played in past discoveries in not relevant to what is necessary now for research and safety testing.It helps in finding exact cure for human diseases.com/0297issues/0297barnard. They help with subjects such as genetics. biomedical research. In addition to being co ±infected with other viruses. D. developmental biology.. Stephen. behavioral studies.different strains of the virus. The pros of animal testing are as follows: . (1998). 1998). Available: http://home. Desert Storm Syndrome.edu/vpr/research/animal/esalt/htm Linder. (1998). Wendy.htm Supress. Lorin. 1998). Available: http://www. (On-line). (1998).sciam. (On-line).It plays a great role in economy. none have become clinically ill. To predict human causes for birth defects has relied heavily on animal experiment. which are thought to be most active in protecting the body from HIV infections. farms. .org/issues/Animal_Experimentation_Issues/chimps. 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. we can¶t rely on misleading and faulty information obtained from animal experiments.pcrm.html Animal testing is the use of non-human animals for scientific experimentation. Although. xenotransplantation etc. (1998). R. pharmaceutical companies.net/~antiviv/article1. (On-line). medical schools. (On-line). . Experimenters designed treatments to specifically destroy the cells. In my opinion.mira. 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.mira. Prior to scientist developed the cell and tissue cultured common today. . There are many physiologic and anatomic differences between humans and chimpanzees.
some animals bred with disease and destines to die.8% of animals do not get pain relief (purposely put in pain for study). Uses 15-20 MILLION animals a year for dissection and testing. I've done some research and I found valid information regarding both sides. CONS: the stress on animals could make some test results invalid.. etc.. money and effort is being put forth for more humane techniques. whether or not you think it's good or bad though.. tests are limited. a vaccine for AIDS has been found (for partial immunity). It is up to individuals to decide whether it is wrong or right based on its advantages and disadvantages. etc. I personally feel it is totally wrong and alternative procedures should be used in research.It is hazardous to lives of animals. products for humans are tested to be safe.It can be misleading as animals and humans are different. It really depends on personal opinion.. forced to suffer purposeful diseases.. almost every large medical discovery in the last 100 years has been found with animal testing. animals can get permanently addicted to harmful drugs. led to life-saving vaccines for humans and animals. repeated tests cause useless suffering. it is vital to medical progression. . scientists can learn more about the body. (as long as animals aren't severely hurt or killed. helped with complex surgical techniques. protects the public from chemicals that are very harmful.S.Animal testing procedures are painful for animals. PROS: saves many lives every year. wounds don't always get bandaged. the alternatives could be dangerous to scientists and be less correct than using an animal. If that's the case then I say it's wrong 100%edly!!). some labs keep animals in unsanitary conditions. ============= think that animal testing is 95% wrong and 5% right.. 8. animals can't communicate feelings with humans. the animals don't have a choice. can not always detect nausea. some things safe for animals are not safe for humans creating false security. headache.The cons of animal testing are as follows: . However. test animals have no freedom. . and depression in animals. 54%= no pain/minor pain 26%= moderate pain 20%= severe pain =( . ESTIMATIONS animals on average suffer. the U.
A number of organizations wish to replace and reduce the number of animals being used or. from elementary school all the way up to college. but I hope this was helpful!! =D The use of laboratory animals is important to three main areas: biomedical 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. Adult stem cell research is key to our status as the world's leader in medical research. its psychological and social behaviors. Animal testing has never really worked. strychnine safe and aspirin dangerous. It is humbling to realize that the flipping of a coin would have proved five times more accurate and much . Animal tests proved penicillin deadly. use animals as parts of the teaching process. and its skills. product safety testing. The industry uses animals to test the effectiveness and safety of many consumer products. it's ineffective By Kelly Overton June 23. Scientists study animals to learn more about certain species: its history. Stop animal testing . at the very least.it's not just cruel.The decision is yours. pesticides. such as cosmetics. 90 percent of medications approved for human use after animal testing later proved ineffective or harmful to humans in clinical trials. The research these people do isn¡¦t only for human benefit. chemicals. and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases. including dissecting worms. they can be caused pain that isn¡¦t natural part of its environment. and education. In fact. Educators. and drugs. and frogs in science classes to medical students using animals to learn surgical techniques. Biomedical researchers use animals to extend their understanding of the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health. lessen the pain. household cleaning products. 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. it is also helping to develop veterinary techniques. If the animals are kept in captivity.
In fact. These lawsuits could rival the tobacco lawsuits of the past decade. All but a very few diseases are species-unique. it is time for consumers and taxpayers to realize that vivisection wastes hundreds of millions of dollars annually and produces an inferior product. Most Americans tolerate vivisection because they believe that it is a necessary evil. tissues and organs.cheaper. and the only efficient and effective way to discover cures and create vaccines is through the use of the same species' cells. not by cutting up beagles. telegrams and bloodletting. but so far have failed to replicate human cancer in any animal.have shown success in treating cardiac infarction. Crohn's disease and thalassemia. . It is time the public stopped funding this antiquated science. with individuals and states seeking damages for the cost of caring for those killed or disabled by dangerous medicines. Whether vivisection is morally right or wrong no longer matters: It is as obsolete as eight-track tapes. but it's not necessary. It may even be time to consider lawsuits aimed at pharmaceutical companies that continue to profit by charging patients. We have spent billions of dollars to cure cancer in mice.after animal testing showed these interventions to be useless. It is evil. The answers to the mysteries of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's will be found by using stem cells and other modern technologies. insurance companies and the state and federal governments for medications and treatments based on such flawed and antiquated research. 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 . Animal-tested drugs have killed. Regardless of one's feelings about animals. international researchers using adult stem cells . disabled or harmed millions of people and lead to costly delays as well. through tax dollars and research and development costs imbedded in prescription prices. The use of animals as models for the development of human medications and disease almost always fails. let alone close in on a cure.cells that are present in all growing human tissue . Adult stem cell research is more effective than animal testing because there are no complications or failures related to tissue rejection. simply because humans and animals have different physiologies.
Kelly Overton is executive director of People Protecting Animals and Their Habitats in Cambridge. 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.baltimoresun. This responsibility begins by ensuring that the research funded with Americans' tax dollars uses the most modern technology and methodology. Copyright © 2006. The NIH must take responsibility for ensuring the United States maintains its status as the world's leader in health care innovation. not experiments on animals.com> . Mass. His e-mail is knophangan@aol. mathematical modeling and the mapping of the human genome. Whether you will live a full life or die early probably depends on today's medical research. epidemiology. human clinical research. a position that guarantees our country's future economic strength and protects the world from the growing threat of biological terrorism. public health improvements. The Baltimore Sun <http://www. human autopsies. 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.com.The medical progress of the past century is the result of technology.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.