For animal advocates, it is important to spotlight these facilities and the often egregious suffering that they house. To illustrate, for every chicken used in research, an equivalent of 340 are used as food. Yet another reason to consider animal testing unethical is the fact that these animals cannot give their consent, but instead of acknowledging that, we go to the extent of exploiting them for our own selfish gains. The use of animals subjects them to a lot of psychological and physical pain. While there are people who are willing to be the so called guinea pigs for science and medical research, there are not enough willing people for the demand of information, and animals are the next more relied upon source. Pulling away babies from their mothers before they even get a chance to open their eyes, is not being human.
It has led to discoveries in the past, but only because it was one of the only methods humans were using previously. It costs a lot of money. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in danger unnecessarily. If the human benefit seems to outweigh the costs of the animal lives, then the only allowable animal experiments must provide the greatest of human benefit. Proponents claim that most medical breakthroughs in the last century were direct results of animal experimentation. Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro ccounterparts and found animal tests were more expensive in every scenario studied. There is no evidence that animal experiments were essential in making major medical advances, and if enough money and resources were devoted to animal-free alternatives, other solutions would be found.
Now, both sides of this argument are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, making it difficult for them to reach any agreement. It allows researchers to study test subjects for an entire life span. There are positives and negatives on each side, so the best way to come up with a well-informed decision about it is taking a closer look at its pros and cons. The supporters of this concept argue that computers can be unreliable in giving accurate results or information on issues related to cells, environment or molecules Christopher 17. Living systems like human beings and animals are extremely complex.
An open mind is always a god thing to have in situations like this, but most people know that an inner emotional feeling will dictate which side you stand on. Research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to ensure their well-being and more accurate findings. Animals used for experimentation purposes are often caged or kept in enclosed surroundings and this automatically generate stress for the animals thus their reaction to the medicine cannot be compared to the reaction they could have in their natural environment. There would have been no way to lower the risk of organ transplant being rejected. What is even more horrifying, is the fact that in some cases the animals are subjected to various tests without anesthesia.
One argument that is considered seriously is that animals cannot provide consent to the testing to which they are being subjected. Up to 1,000 drugs have shown effectiveness for neuroprotection in animals, but none for humans. As for the animals themselves, they are often purchased, which can add up to the overall cost. As you can see, people and animals are biologically similar, having the same set of organs, central nervous system and bloodstream, which is why both are affected by virtually the same health conditions and diseases. Another case that best demonstrates this disadvantage involves the arthritis drug Vioxx, which showed to protect the hearts of mice, yet went on to cause heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. This is a way of ensuring whether the medicinal discoveries are safe to be used by any living organisms.
As you can see, the drug was almost shelved because it proved dangerous for animals, which could have lead to the difficulty of lowering the risk of organ rejection during transplants. However, even similar organisms taken out of their natural habitat may not react in a reliable, consistent manner to a drug intended for human use. Due to the fact that medical science has only come so far, it cannot be guaranteed that all treatments that are given to animals will work for people and this can cause mistreatment of the animals as well as the medical mistreatment to people. Animals euthanize to avoid pain: 31% Total Number of Species Used in Annual Research 10. Peter Singer, In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, 2006 Paul Waldau, Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know, 2011. Among the many organizations and institutions working on better alternatives are , , and who are leading the way in promoting clinical and educational alternatives.
It is performed despite the existence of less expensive alternatives. But on the other side of the coin, critics are also pushing their reasons why the practice should not be continued, with animal suffering and ethical issues as their biggest concerns. The obvious explanation being they do not have the understanding capabilities of humans. The welfare of animals, regardless of their size or if they are warm or cold blooded, should be taken into account. Likewise, the laws that govern and regulate experimentation in the U. It does not prove to contribute to medical breakthroughs. Cruel and inhumane treatment Protocols in animal testing are often painful to the test subjects.
However, data from Great Britain indicate that the actual use of mice by far the most-used laboratory species for research projects has plateaued in the last decade despite a large increase in the size of breeding colonies. With the advent of modern molecular biology and its analytical methods, scientists can now quantify the precise extent to which humans resemble other animals, genetically speaking. While there are many points where they are often similar, because of their differences, many would suggest that these differences are the defining line between an experiment going right and wrong in a person, and this makes experimentation on animals wrong. When a cure to a disease is discovered while working with animals, at least that test subject served a purpose that helped humanity, even if the results were not positive in the short term for the animal population. However, there are particular things that make these animal experimentation processes unfavorable for some animal rights advocates. There are many results already showing various medicinal breakthroughs with animal experimentation making it an advantageous procedure to try.
The most common examples of animal experimentation for scientific knowledge are animal biopsies and vivisections in schools to teach children biology and medical procedures. Given that there are both pros and cons of the animal experimentation procedures, it is your decision whether you should be supporting this kind of experimentations or not. The most significant research today using animals pertains to diabetes and cancer using primarily mice. A good example is Thalidomide in Germany in the 1970s, which had been tested on a number of animals in their thousands and was declared safe for human use and released in the market in 1950s. These are questions advocates should think about and possibly research further. These animals are then killed ruthlessly after they are used in conducting this research and others are always reared to keep the process going.