Category: Animal Testing

Animal testing has been a controversial issue due to the moral and immoral issues that have to be considered at the moment of practice these sadistic experiments. The use of animals to scientific terms took place in 500 BC in ancient Greece, utilizing them to discover the organ’s functions. However, in ancient Rome and Alexandria, these experiments were practised on criminals, yet years later banned as it was considered mutilation of the human body, using animals instead. Though, it was not just before Queen Victoria demonstrated her disapproval to these experiments during the 19th century that campaigns against animal testing initiated (ProCon, 2019). Although these experiments may be considered unethical and immoral, experts have continued to practice them since they have become the conventional testing form throughout the years; and also because it is more affordable for businesses (Cruelty Free International, n.d). Nonetheless, these are not sufficient reasons to justify this brutal act, and instead, other ways of testing must be implemented to stop the usage of animals and obtain more accurate results.

Firstly, it is important to highlight that there are more accurate alternatives of testing implementing the technological advances that have been developed; furthermore, it is fundamental to estimate the differences in the reactions that animal testing has on humans and animals. Each year, more than 100 million animals are killed only in the United States due to medical researches (PeTA, 2017). Animal testing in medical research is practised to scope the amount of medicine that is absorbed into the blood, the toxicity, the reactions and the time taken for the reaction (FDA, 2019). Nowadays, acknowledge the advancement and the growing of different innovations in science, there are many ways to test the veracity of pharmaceutical products to replace the employment of animals (Cruelty Free International, n.d). Alternative solutions include computer models that replicate human organs and musculoskeletal systems to study biological conditions, 3D simulations of humans cells to demonstrate the possible reactions that antibiotics may have in individuals, and volunteer studies which consists of providing a modest amount of doses of new drugs or treatments to analyse how they affect the humans’ body of those who have terminal illnesses (Cruelty Free International, n.d ). In addition, according to Cruelty Free International, those experiments are more accurate than testing on animals; for example, a scientist can do skin allergy tests with a cell-based procedure demonstrating 90% accuracy, while animal testing is just 72% (n.d). As a result, nowadays the use of animals is unnecessary and it is proof that new techniques can be implemented avoiding animals torture.

Furthermore, animal testing has been utilised to avoid harming humans. However, a considerable amount of animals including mice, dogs, monkeys and rabbits, have suffered severe consequences to the extent of death. They have been forced to inhale toxic gases, to suffer prolonged immobilisation, being burned, as well as deprived of living in their natural environment, which has not only caused them physical damages, but also psychological trauma. This is solely due to cosmetic testing and biological experiments, among others (PeTA, 2017), which results in not having an immediate and painless death, and instead, suffering a slow and painful one. Moreover, Navs explains that cosmetic testing experiments specifically causes of eye and skin irritation, carcinogenicity, and levels of toxicity in animals (n.d). For instance, the most common method to measure toxicity is the Draize rabbit eye test, which helps to identify if the chemical would cause injuries to humans’ eyes (n.d). This process consists of depositing a small amount of the substance in the eyes of at least six rabbits, leaving it for 21 days and recording the reactions, which usually are pain, irritation, dehydration and blindness (Navs, n.d). It is fundamental to highlight that this is just one of the hundreds and cruel tests that innocent animals suffer in laboratories every day.

Opponents may claim that biologically humans and specific animals, which are involved in animal testing, especially mice and monkeys, share the same or similar set of genes. That is why their reactions will, or are supposed to be, the same as humans to diseases and treatments (Blakemore, October 28, 2018). According to Blakemore (2018) to protect human life, unfamiliar medicines and treatments have to be proven before they are implemented and sold. Thus it is better than an animal life is at risk and not human life; to this extent, they maintain that more than be ashamed people should be proud that it is possible to have some responses before humans consume it (2018). However, PeTA states that the virus that is synthetically induced in animals differ to those who occur naturally, so the results and reactions that are shown in animals may be different in humans. For instance, since long time ago scientists discover the cure for cancer and it works in mice, however, when it was tested in humans it did not work. In 2015 even though the HIV and AIDS vaccines were efficient in monkeys, they were not effective in humans, in fact, those who utilized them argue that they made them more exposed to the condition ( PeTA, 2017). As has been demonstrated, animal testing is not accurate due to the biological differences between human and animals and so, hundreds of animals are dying every day for no substantial reasons.

In conclusion, the proponents of animal testing have to consider the innumerable amount of ethical and moral issues that it involves. Furthermore, It is important to consider that animal testing does not have any better results than the technological ones, or even human testing that can be done with volunteers who have a terminal condition. Conversely, it has been demonstrated that both of these has more solid results. To that extent, there are more ways of testing products before they are provided to humans. Also, if animals are like us, as we can utilize them for both medical and cosmetic testing instead of humans, then certainly those animals feel and suffer psychologically and physically damages, and most importantly, they deserve to be treated and protected as we would wish for ourselves.

To the professors and experimenters who vouch for animal testing,

It is no means for your research. Right now, an assortment of vulnerable animals is locked inside barren cages in laboratories across the country. Not only is animal testing morally and ethically wrong, the multi-billion dollar industry that encompasses the pharmaceutical and chemical chains, is ruining the biodiversity throughout our ecosystems that we have tried so hard to maintain. The abundance of alternatives you have to these poor, innocent animals is endless yet you choose to attack those who have no choice but to dwell under your constant cycle of utter abuse and torture.

Animal testing is wrong, immoral, and unjust. Professor Charles R. Magel said, “Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals and the answer is: ‘Because animals are like us.’ Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are not like us.” This rests on a complete contradiction. If animals are so like us that we can substitute ourselves for them, then surely those very same animals have the same attributes as us; the ability to suffer psychological and physical pain and therefore should be protected from such, just as we are. You inject and force feed animals with potentially harmful substances, expose them to radiation, surgically remove their organs or tissues to deliberately cause damage, force them to inhale toxic gas, and subject them to frightening situations to create anxiety and depression. Everything we have has been trailed by you on them. Imagine if you were subjected to this, taken from your home to an environment different from your own, forced under microscopes, and tested continuously until your ultimate death, it would not be a good feeling, would it?

If every Australian knew what it was you were doing behind closed doors, you would not have the support you do today, you keep us oblivious but it is time you honed Australia in. Sweet and vulnerable animals who have no form of defense against you are harnessed and tested against their will and continuously examined. More than 6 million animals are used annually throughout only Australia and New Zealand for your benefit. Many of those 6 million animals languished in pain and stress during your experimental procedure and because of the environment in which they are kept prior to and after the procedures they suffer to a horrifying degree. Killing these animals, stripping them away from their habitat, ruining the diversity throughout our ecosystems, all they long for is to be free. Instead, they wait in fear until the next painful procedure is completed them.

The alternatives you have to these pure creatures are endless, yet you still chose to proceed with this social evil. These alternatives to animal testing include sophisticated tests using human cells and tissues, advanced computer-modeling techniques, and studies with human volunteers. These are just a few of the non-animal methods that make applying results to humans much easier, and they usually take less time and money to complete. It has already been confessed by former U.S. National Institutes of Health director Dr. Elias Zerhouni that experimenting on animals to help humans has been a major failure, so why do you still bother?

I plead with you to take a deeper look and reconsider the way in which you conduct your experimentation with these animals, it advances human knowledge, yes, but it does so at the expense of our human character.

Every day, over 115 million animals are trapped in steel cages, waiting for a latex-gloved hand to reach in and whisk them away for another day of testing. These animals are used to test the safety of products intended for human use, improve our medicines, or investigate the effects of products or procedures. Using animals for these purposes is unethical and constitutes abuse. Even though successful animal research frequently benefits humans, the pain, suffering, and deaths of animals are not worth the potential human benefits. Therefore, animals should not be used in research or product testing.

Animals, like humans, are living creatures with the ability to hear, see, remember, smell, distinguish objects, and even behave reasonably following some behavioral patterns. Similar to human beings, they can have many underlying feelings; they feel pain if they are harmed or exposed to abuse. When animals are used in research or product testing, their rights are violated. A large proportion of animal testing results in moderate or severe suffering for the animal and results mostly in death once the experiment is completed. Some of the tests that the animals must endure are; skin sensitization, neurotoxicity, eye irritancy, and mutagenicity. These tests include the animals being forced to inhale and consume poisonous fumes or having lethal chemicals poured into their eyes or rubbed into their skin. These animals are caged and deprived of their freedom of movement and control over their lives. They are denied attention and get mistreated. As long as animals can feel pain, subjecting them to these experiments appears inhumane and should no longer remain legal. The European Union, Israel, India, Australia, and New Zealand have banned the sale of any cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients that have been tested on animals. This was a huge victory for animals, but changes need to be made globally.

Because the structure, physiology, and molecular structure of animals differ from that off humans, using them in experiments can lead to errors. Many animals do not even contract diseases that humans do, so animals cannot provide accurate results because humans and animals are not structurally built in the same way. Animal testing is unnecessary because there are viable alternatives.

In conclusion, animal testing should be illegal because it violates the rights of animals, causes pain and suffering to experimental animals, and other methods of testing product toxicity are available. Humans cannot justify torturing and executing thousands of animals each year to perform laboratory experiments in order to improve their own lives.

Animal Testing: Cruel or Crucial?

Testing on animals is one of the most talked about and problematic issues in moral debates. This hot topic raises ethical concerns which infuriate a numerous amount of people. Should animals have the same rights as humans? Is animal welfare being forgotten about and should we be mindful that it is just as important as human welfare? Animals of all shapes and sizes across the world are used in the development of medical trials and treatments to determine their toxicity and safety for human beings to use. And, as expected, during this process animals are harmed in unimaginable ways which are where the concerns lie. However, if this process was not in place would human lives be in danger when trying out new medicines? Most likely. Ultimately, would medical science be advancing at the rate it is without animal experimentation?

Animal testing is the primary source for medical research as it has enabled a plentiful number of life-saving treatments and medical breakthroughs. Worldwide medicines including penicillin, insulin, and polio treatment have all been discovered and made safe for humans to take advantage of. All of which directly used animal testing. As a result of the polio vaccine, the number of people suffering from polio since 1988 has decreased by 99%. Without the process of animal testing, researchers’ knowledge and understanding of major conditions such as breast cancer, childhood leukemia, and cystic fibrosis would not have been expanded to the wide degree that it is now. Animal testing has not just played a part in the research of various conditions, but also in developing equipment that is crucial to the survival of patients. This could include pacemakers and cardiac valve substitutes. The animal testing stage is essential to releasing new medicines otherwise it will not be known to man if they are safe or not. So, to prevent great danger this stage cannot be skipped, some would say it’s crucial. Overall, science has achieved huge revolutions in the means of animal testing, which would otherwise not have been possible, and we must be thankful for such discoveries.

Having said that, animal testing can come across to people as being cruel and inhumane, and to put it plainly, they are not wrong in thinking that. Most animals are not protected by laws and rights in the way that humans are. In the USA, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which was originally passed in 1966, has not yet succeeded in preventing horrific cases of animal abuse. The New Iberia Research Centre (NIRC) in Louisiana, USA, violated the Animal Welfare Act, in 2015, by mistreating their animals. The exploitation of such guidelines included chimpanzees being shot with dart guns and other mammals being wide awake and alert during unpleasant experiences. 25 million animals in the US are without protection from mistreatment, meaning only 5% of animals used in experiments are protected by law. The AWA does not apply to 95% of animals involved in animal testing procedures including mice, rats, fish, and birds. These animals might not come across as being the most important in general society but, they do however have feelings and it could very well be argued that they do not deserve to be treated so ruthlessly. It has been proven that animals are just as, if not more, intelligent than humans so why is it any different to test on them than it is to test on us? Dr. Arthur Santiotis, a visiting researcher at the University of Adelaide school of medical science, has said that science tells us that animals can have cognitive faculties that are superior to human beings. Animals are not stupid, they are not silly, and they know what it is that`s happening to them when they are being tested yet they are just expected to sit through it and let it happen. By what means can people think that`s okay?

On the other hand, human’s superiority over animals often results in animals being used for testing. Helpfully, animals are quite comparable to humans in that they are known for sharing a lot of their DNA and are similar in terms of genes. For example, mice are around 85% genetically like humans and have the same organs. This gives an accurate representation and reliable information to work with. We have not found any other suitable substitute for testing that is realistic. Studying cell perception in Petri dishes does not provide the information needed to study movements happening in organisms such as the Central Nervous System. However, as expected, animal testing can provide this. It could also be argued that it is not just humans who benefit from treatments derived from animal experimentation, animals have done so in the past; in terms of them suffering from the same diseases and being cured in the same way. These treatments could also be used to save animals from life-threatening conditions; the black-footed ferret, native to Central America, has been saved from extinction, as have others. If animals are prone to the same conditions as humans like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, then surely it makes sense to test them. An example in more recent times is COVID-19. The recently discovered vaccine was tested on animals and appeared to have protected six rhesus macaque monkeys by removing the virus from their airways and lungs, enabling them to recover from COVID. Animals are proven to be reliable and comparable, and we know it works.

A lot of experiments are flawed because the treatment could potentially not be 100% safe for humans. An example of this is the 1950s sleeping pill, known as Thalidomide. It was tested on animals and regarded as being safe, yet it caused 10,000 babies to be born with deformities detrimental to their life and well-being. So, it was taken off the market in 1961 and is only legal under strict, prescribed conditions. The arthritic drug, known as Vioxx, was also tested using animals and yet it caused 27,000 heart attacks and so was also taken off the market, in 2004. It is in fact true to say that around 90% of drugs that pass the animal testing stages fail in human clinical trials. It is evident that animal testing is not always the best way to analyze samples and is not reliable in all cases. Even though it is not common, humans can give consent and volunteer themselves to be tested and so, in such instances, animals are not necessarily needed. And just to clarify, medical breakthroughs have been made without the use of animals. There are various alternatives to testing such as using in-vitro cells, which just means using cells outside of the body to test potentially harmful substances. This process has many advantages including it being cheaper to run, and it of course does not harm anyone. With the increasing advancement of computers, the capability to recreate features of the human body is becoming ever more possible. They can be used to run virtual tests using data from scientists. If there is an option to carry out some clinical trials without testing on animals, then why do it? Having read this information, it can be argued that it is clear animal testing is unnecessary.

Without a doubt, testing has contributed massively to the advancement of medical science over the years and there is no question that it will continue to do so. Without it, so much would not have been achievable, and it has helped us to understand the effect of certain viruses and bacteria. But there is also the realization that it raises ethical concerns for a large number of people, which are not going to be resolved unless a more permanent solution is found in the absence of animals. We know animal testing has played a huge part in saving human lives, which we are grateful for. However, it has been proven that in some cases, treatments can be discovered without the need for animal testing. And so, the question still lies; should we be relying on animals to ensure the medicine is safe for humans? Is it cruel or is it crucial?

Animal testing has been a controversy for over a century since the Cruelty to Animal Act of 1876, the first law in the world aiming to regulate the use of animals in research, was passed. For example, in Korea, 4.14 million animals were reportedly mobilized and victimized in animal experiments in 2020, according to the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency, moreover, the figures have increased every year. While public awareness of animal rights has heightened so far, there has still been no legal framework for animal protection from experimental uses, as the relevant bills were proposed but are still pending at the National Assembly. Under the circumstances, it needs to be reconsidered why it should be legislative to ban animal testing in scientific research.

To begin with, animal testing is cruel. Animals also have the rights to be treated against cruelty because all living existences should be respected based on the ethics of respect for life. American biologist and former professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, Marc Bekoff, who has pursued his research in animal behavior and behavioral ecology, argued that human beings should treat animals with care and respect because non-human animals exhibit thought processes similar to humans as well as emotions that could be compared to human emotions, such as grief, fear, love, and compassion. Bekoff claimed that “non-human animals are extremely smart and demonstrate emotional and moral intelligence”. As he has proved in his numerous studies, animals can feel the same emotions that humans do, so animal testing can cause terrifying pain that animals can feel as much as humans. This suggests animal experiments can be cruel to animals, and they are completely against animal rights as well as the ethics of respect for life.

Furthermore, animal experiments are not accurate at an optimum level any longer when researchers and scientists use the results of the study and apply them to human cases. It is undeniable that human beings and animals have anatomical and biological similarities in their bodies, so the fact has lied at the root of justifying animal testing in history. However, the situation in science and medicine has changed over the past decades due to rapid scientific advancements. The scientific and medical technologies have become far more sophisticated than before, so subtle genetic differences between humans and animals can critically affect the experimental results. For example, the thalidomide tragedy is one of the best-known cases of animal testing failure. Thalidomide, developed in Germany in the 1950s as a sedative, had passed safety after more than 600 times of animal testing; however, it was later proved to be extremely dangerous to pregnant women after thousands of deformed children were born. In this regard, animal testing can lead to experimental failures and errors, which can ultimately result in harmful effects on human bodies.

Some scholars in opposing views claim that there are several reasons why animal experiments continuously should be carried out despite their detrimental effects. They argue that animal testing has proven itself to be effective and reliable in scientific experiments so far, also, especially animal experiments have generated tremendous life-saving medical advancements. In history, numerous infectious diseases (e.g., typhoid, diphtheria, measles, smallpox, etc.) have been treated by vaccinations. Those vaccines would not be possible to be invented without animal testing because inventing new medications, such as vaccines, requires a great number of experimental living organisms. For that reason, among non-human existences, there is no other effective experimental subject except for animals. In this regard, the researchers on the opposite side assert that animal testing should be allowed in specific cases, directly related to human health issues under strict conditions.

Granted, it may seem reasonable that animal testing may be allowed to a certain degree because of no adequate alternative to animals as experimental subjects. However, the argument cannot be accepted because there have been several experimental alternatives being developed. Owing to advancements in scientific technologies, non-animal testing methods have been invented. For example, researchers can use isolated humane cells and tissues instead of living animals, and they can also replace animals with computers and mathematics to model biological processes and expect the effects of chemicals and drugs. In addition, experts can conduct experiments on human volunteers and they can explore new advanced technologies such as robotics, molecular techniques, tissue engineering, and ‘organs-on-microchips’. Some of the aforementioned methods have gained high credibility and great accuracy to be widely used in practice. Therefore, it should not be allowed to experiment with animals under the pretext of no alternatives to them in research.

In conclusion, I strongly oppose animal testing and believe it has no place in today’s scientific world, and pending bills should be passed as soon as possible. Thankfully, the atmosphere surrounding animal rights has become friendly compared to the past, and there is currently a social consensus that animals should be protected and respected as a part of our society. In this environment, there have been 17 revised bills on animal rights proposed at the National Assembly in 2021, and a good number of activists and civic groups are continuously raising the issues on animal rights. Even though there are a number of implementation barriers to legally banning animal testing, this is why the situation is not so hopeless.

Introduction

Each year many innocent worldwide animals are taken away from their natural habitats. Animals are taken away by force to be put into laboratories to be tested on many company products, from medication to cosmetics, causing animals pain, suffering, distress, or lasting harm. This has been around for centuries.

Body

The Ethical Dilemma of Animal Testing

In the late nineteenth century, the number of animals that were used in tests increased forward with the number of tests. Animal testing causes a lot of pain, and it’s given to animals to improve human lives should be rejected. For the benefits, it is something over the suffering that the animals should not have to go through, and it is not so safe. The article The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt” by Pat Dutt and Jonathan Latham and the documentary “Bye, Bye guinea pig” from Java film exclusive both talk about how animals are being tested for hundreds of thousands of consumer products. However, the documentary uses a strong emotional appeal that makes the subject more persuasive.

Scientific Validity in Question

The article “The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt” by Pat Dutt and Jonathan Latham was published in 2013. In this article, the authors argue that not all animal testing is safe; according to Kristie Sullivan, Director of Regulatory Testing Issues at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, “about 90% of all pharmaceuticals tested for safety in animals fail to reach the market, or are quickly pulled from the market”. Everyday products, from soft drinks and baby foods to paints, gardening products, cosmetics, and shampoos, contain numerous synthetic chemicals such as dyes, active ingredients, or contaminants. Official assurances of the safety of these chemicals are based on animal experiments that use rabbits, mice, rats, and dogs. But new results from a consortium of researchers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy say it may be worthless.

The author Jonathan Latham argues that “medical failures affect the unwell, chemical toxins have potential repercussions for everyone.” The main point is if animals are not useful predictors of important disease responses in humans, it is unlikely they are useful as test subjects for toxicological safety. The lack of accordance in chemicals found in certain products, incorporated into food, and otherwise spread throughout the environment is untested. “We are not protecting humans,” says Pat Dutt, “even a National Academy study agrees that many toxicological tests are not human-relevant.”

Conclusion

In the documentary “Bye Bye Guinea, Pig” by the filmmaker Aude Favre, Kanopy was published in 2016. In the documentary, it argues that “animals deserve more than being tortured in labs.” Animals are being tested by so many products before humans get to use the products, which is not a great thing for animals. In order to see if a product works or if it causes some kind of reaction, animals are the first ones to experience the effects. The documentary attempts to convince the audience that animal testing is dangerous and not safe for all animals. The thesis of this is to stop animals from being tested.

“In 2013, a European law banned the use of animal testing products”. By the filmmaker Aude Favre, Kanopy was published in 2016. Away from the ethical issues of the purpose exposing physical pain can form suffering in large numbers of creatures. Animal tests provide little understanding of how chemicals behave in the body and, in many cases, do not think about the real world of human reactions. As in health, scientists are questioning the relevance of research for human diseases in the laboratory by creating symptoms in other animal species.

References

1. Dutt, P., & Latham, J. (2013). The Experiment Is on Us: Science of Animal Testing Thrown into Doubt. Independent Science News.
2. Favre, A. (Director). (2016). Bye Bye Guinea Pig [Documentary]. Kanopy.

Introduction

Unnatural and/or painful situations are not ethical in the pursuit of the human condition if you ask PETA. But in order to test medicines or other practices, we need test subjects. We can’t always test things on humans as they did to many people back in the day.

Body

The Ethical Predicament

This may be a tough decision to make, but testing has to be done for humanity to continue to grow and thrive. “The balancing process is complicated, on the one hand, by a plurality of views on our duties towards animals, and on the other hand by more recent discussions on uncertainty in the probability of reaching the final aim of the research and problems of translational failure,” (Meijboom, Kostrzewa, & Leenaars, 2020).

The Moral Dilemma

Testing on animals is necessary. In recent decades, scientists have found it to be more proficient at using rats and mice in various surgeries, drug trials, and observations as opposed to humans. It has been found that without animal research, we would diminish as a race. “ An immediate end to animal research in the U.S. would be a death sentence for millions of people around the world,” she told Newsweek,” (Ericson, 2014).

Various alternatives to animal testing have been proposed in recent decades to outline great concerns and drawbacks associated with animal experiments. Often times experiments on animals have proved to cause unnatural and painful situations (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). It is like taking your pet to the cat or dog and making them go thru pain for science. You would immediately say no. However, if I knew that it would save my child from disease and or help find a cure, I would rethink that decision without a second. No one wants to be that person that suggests a necessary evil. The outcomes of these dreadful tests and experiments have saved many lives.

Alternative Approaches and Progress

Latvia is still experiencing one of the highest human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) mortality rates in the European Union, and HIV is the sixth leading cause of death among young adults (15-39) in the country. The aim of the study was to determine the years of potential life lost (YPPL) as an indicator of premature mortality and the associated factors among people living with HIV in Latvia. Data from the National Registry of HIV?AID Cases were used for the time period 1991-2010. (Karnite, Brigis, & Uuskula, 2012)

HIV testing has come a long way. We see people living healthy lives with the assistance of modern-day science and experiments. “Animal models offer obvious advantages in the study of HIV/AIDS, allowing for a more invasive investigation of the disease and for preclinical testing of drugs and vaccines.” (Hatziioannou & Evans, 2012)

Conclusion

In conclusion, I do not think it is ethical to subject animals to unnatural and/or painful situations in the pursuit of knowledge about the human condition. However, it is a necessary evil. We are growing as a population, and new viruses and diseases are surfacing daily. Even though these animals should not be harmed intentionally. Science has a need for testing and assurance.

References

1. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S.C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. 23, 223-229. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
2. Ericson, J. (2014, February 21). John Ericson. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/authors/john-ericson
   Hatziioannou, T., & Evans, D. T. (2012). Animal models for HIV/AIDS research. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 10(12), 852–867. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2911
3. Karnite, A., Brigis, G., & Uuskula, A. (2012). Years of potential life lost due to HIV infection and associated factors based on national HIV surveillance data in Latvia, 1991–2010. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 45(2), 140–146. doi:10.3109/00365548.2012.717710
4. Meijboom, F. L. B., Kostrzewa, E., & Leenaars, C. H. C. (2020). Joining forces: the need to combine science and ethics to address problems of validity and translation in neuropsychiatry research using animal models.
5. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 15(1). doi:10.1186/s13010-019-0085-4

Introduction

Many laboratories are essential in finding information. Sometimes experts study by operating prescription medicines. Consequently, lives have gone down. An example of a horrible effect is considered a strange disease. Humans and living species are almost the same; however, they don’t react in their manners but are observed to be animals, too.

Body

Ethical Concerns and Scientific Progress

Experimentations that can be dangerous and harmful to animals should conduct inside a secure environment along with reliable researchers by following instructions. Also, researchers should put nonliving things to learn and further investigate. In reducing experimentations, researchers have been protecting animals by encouraging non-animal testing to be used to contribute to curing ​​​diseases and using microchips as useful material for ​​​​experimentation options.

Animals are useful in treatments to find diseases such as HIV, cancer and vaccines. Animals help scientists to create new medicines and understand human health. Drugs have been used on humans for unnecessary reasons. It is considered acceptable that gives volunteers ‘informed’ consent. Under progress, a lot of drugs are created to make an obvious variation beyond those from existing drugs. It is easy to confirm that telling people to risk their life in order to initiate new drug treatments for a condition in which they are suffering from pain and treatments that are lacking drugs. When the drug is visualized, it receives no specific benefits to the subjects because they are healthy people that are trying a copy of an existing drug. Producers hope that animal testing will show how a given drug will affect humans.

Scientific Necessity and Alternatives

Between 70-75 percent of animal research, these drugs have been recommended by the Food and Drug Administration based on promising results, but it has been proven that it is unsafe for human beings. According to the website ‘PETA,’ it says that we didn’t use drugs on animals; we would have to use experiments on people. The reason why is that the experiments on animals are not able to pass further investigations, and they will be tested on humans, which will not go in the right direction.

The National Institute of Health has been observing that animal testing on drugs is considered to be safe and necessary, but they fail people because they are threatening. For humans, a slight percentage of drugs have been approved, but the rest ended up being rebranded because of the side effects that were seen in animal testing.

The types of body effects are Vioxx, Phenactin, and Oralfelx. Markets need indication by getting replaced. It causes harmful reactions killing 100,000 beings each year and is known as the fourth largest killer. Without animals, our species will create a greater possible goal for health.

Balancing Human Welfare and Animal Well-Being

However, living creatures are evolving in ineffective forms. After causes, experiments result in deaths such as painful relief. People let species be shocked, burned, famished, restrained, and have brain conditions. Amphibians and rodents are replaced and not protected by federal law. Researchers don’t have to leave them to suffer.

For people, NAVS has shown that more gentle experimentations are safe, and it would replace all animal use with non-living materials. NAVS evaluates living animal protection laws which will communicate to contact their staff by supporting supporters by speaking up for what is right for animals. With applying laws, government agencies must be in charge of ensuring regulations could give prescriptions and make people help them or require scientists to provide more data on animals to see how they are using them. To expand its coverage, NAVS has continued to study by working to stop animal learning.

Inaccurate calculations using experimentations experienced at a high rate. Described as human with horrible, cases have proved genetics disallow organisms from seeing medicines. Besides humans, ineffective versions such as treatment reactions will result in serious outcomes for us. Scientists taught experimentation shows unnecessary choices. With unsafe laboratories, our species expressed this is horrible, wasting their lives. Natural learners possessed managing human resources with more resources than nonhuman experiments.

Conclusion

Besides our species, living organisms are hardly a good reference. Along with learning, scientists will have a chance to become persistent patients. It is not a lot of money, and researchers will initiate new technologies to make it an approachable experiment. Analysts are learning to build stamp organs to attempt drugs that will have a greater impact. Also, researchers have been evaluating such as bug bites, rashes, freckles, and many particles.

References

1. Doke, S. K., & Dhawale, S. C. (2015). Alternatives to animal testing: A review. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 23, 223-229. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2013.11.002
2. Ericson, J. (2014, February 21). John Ericson. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/authors/john-ericson
3. Hatziioannou, T., & Evans, D. T. (2012). Animal models for HIV/AIDS research. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 10(12), 852–867. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2911

Every year, over 100 million animals are killed by horrible testing in U.S. laboratories due to animal testing (PETA). Facial Botox is a common beauty enhancer that is frequently tested on animals. The animals are injected in their stomach with different dosages of the toxin in order to see which dose kills the animals. Then, while they are fully awake, they die slowly and suffocate from paralysis. Animals suffer and die for cosmetics every year, yet it says it is still allowed in 80% of the world (Galgo Amigo). The negative impacts of animal testing overcome the positive, due to horrific treatments, the unreliability of testing, and the untold cruelty to innocent animals.

The U.S. law allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, drowned, and so on. Before these innocent animals are tested, they are locked into tiny shipping crates and loaded onto planes. Food and water are necessities that they rarely receive during this process. These frightening factors are what people do not want to believe, but it is happening every single day. There is a frightening story of baby monkeys that are caged with their sedated mother’s (PETA 2). While they are waiting to be tested on, the terrified babies try to revive their mothers. In this experiment, the lab workers would drill holes and screw objects into the animals’ heads. Eventually, they are killed, and after they are killed, they are thrown into a bin with other dead animals. Animals are just like humans in that they feel pain, so making them go through these things is abuse (PETA 2).

Just because humans share genetic material with animals does not necessarily mean it is expressed the same way. A recent study showed that only 50% of mice DNA match human DNA. Everyday drugs are also tested on animals, yet most of them seem to fail on actual humans. Vioxx, a drug used to treat arthritis, was found to be safe when tested on monkeys and other animals, but has been estimated to have caused around 320,000 heart attacks and 140,000 deaths worldwide. These tests are extremely inaccurate and have actually caused more deaths when tested on animals (Cruelty Free).

The untold cruelty of animal testing is not the most spoken topic. Animals are locked inside unimaginably small cages in laboratories across the country. They suffer in pain from extreme frustration, ache with loneliness, and long to be free. The torture these animals are being put through, causes them to develop different unhealthy types of behavior such as constant spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. Some cruelty that is placed on animals during these tests includes, forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs flesh-eating pesticides and dripping deadly chemicals into rabbits’ sensitive eyes. There are many non-animal test methods that can be used in place of animal testing, yet this abuse is still going on in America (PETA).

Animal testing includes far more negative impacts than positive due to horrific treatments, the unreliability of testing, and the untold cruelty to innocent animals. The tests they are being put through are horrific for all animals and is practically torture. These laboratories the poor animals are placed in are toxic and terrifying. Poisoning, drowning, and torturing animals is not okay, and should be banned in the U.S. Chemicals, along with any other drug should never be tested on animals, because it ruins and breaks down their bodies physically, and mentally. Animals do not have nearly the same genetic makeup as humans, so putting them through suffering is arguably pointless.

This comes as a result of the need to test cosmetics, new drugs and the effects of chemicals on living organisms before they reach the public mass market. It comes as no surprise however, that this has caused massive uproar with animal activists and pet owners globally, arguing that there are many other alternatives to animal testing that could be used instead of harming and wasting the lives of animals. Companies such as Lush, The Body Shop and NYX are cruelty free and don’t support animal testing [2] (PETA, 2015).These companies often target consumers who are very concerned with the lives of animals, and hence market themselves as cruelty free. Yet, some countries around the world like China require that cosmetic products go through extensive animal testing before they reach the mass market [3] (elephant, 2018). Animals are subject to pain and agony as a result of these experiments and raise many ethical issues.

The first source is the Annual Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2017 released by the Home Office. In the UK, the Animals (Scientific Procedure) Act, 1986 monitors the use of living animals in scientific procedures and records statistics concerning all procedures carried out [4] (Office, 2017). Figure 11 of the source states that 27% of the 322,000 procedures for applied research were used for human cancer [4] (Office, 2017, p. 19). This suggests that the use of animals in scientific testing is justified as it benefits humans and animal research and is essential for making progress against cancer when no other alternatives are available to provide the information required. In addition, the source explains that animal testing can be used for the conservation of endangered species. Whilst four species of endangered wild birds were used in research, the results helped scientists in their efforts to conserve them [4] (Office, 2017, p. 28), thus supporting the argument that animal testing is in fact justified within the scientific community.

The Home Office is a government department, so the credibility is instantly enhanced as they are an official organisation. They have a good reputation to uphold as they are linked to the government which make them more likely to tell the truth and they have the means available to compile accurate and reliable information. Furthermore, the purpose of the source is exclusively to report the statistics of scientific procedures in Great Britain so therefore has a vested interest to tell the truth in order to accurately inform the parliament of these procedures. Although the Home Office has a highly well-regarded reputation, there is no specific author listed so we do not know if the author has any expertise in the field or a personal vested interest to lie. This may perhaps slightly weaken the credibility of the source, however the thorough fact checking process required by the Home Office and its generally very credible reputation perhaps offsets this and leads to this source displaying accurate and neutral information.

The second source under consideration is embodied within an article from Bloomberg [5] (Bloomberg, 2018), a privately held media company based in Midtown Manhattan, New York City, that delivers news from all over the world. Written with assistance from Corinne Gretler and Rachel Chang, who are currently journalists for Bloomberg, the article attempts to bring to light details of animal testing in China. Many labs resort to animal testing because they do not have the capacity to execute alternative methods due to lack of training. Perhaps this may justify the use of animals in commercial testing as some countries do not have the technology nor training needed for alternative methods. The European Union and other countries have laws in place to ban all animal testing for cosmetic uses, putting China as one of the last countries in the world to require animal testing, by law, on cosmetics imported and sold to China. This shows that the majority of countries have successfully become cruelty free and confirms that commercial testing on animals is not a necessity to prove the safety of such products.

Corinne Gretler has been a reporter at Bloomberg for the past seven years, her work includes numerous articles regarding overseas affairs, so she may be better qualified to comment upon the situation from a professional viewpoint as she may have more expertise than other journalists; this in turn increases the credibility of the article. Both reporters and Bloomberg News have a credible reputation to uphold and publishing fabricated news to persuade readers in any certain way brings no merit. Furthermore, since this article is for the purpose of informing the community about this particular matter in China, it is likely to be free of bias and considered neutral. As Bloomberg News is neither affiliated nor paid by the Chinese government, they are not likely to have any vested interest to lie. Many media companies, however, are funded or directly affiliated to their country’s government and are not able to publish anything detrimental or critical to the authorities. In China, for example, specific websites such as YouTube and Facebook are deemed harmful by the government and are therefore blocked [6] (Xu & Albert, 2017). This censorship in China greatly restricts the freedom of media which in turn makes it difficult to disclose any controversial articles. Journalists in countries like China may be bribed or threatened by government officials and could therefore greatly reduce their credibility. In comparison, Bloomberg’s credibility is highly elevated as they are able to remain neutral, unbiased and provide independent news coverage free from government intervention.

The third source to take under consideration in an article by Peta [7] (PETA, 2018); it states that the ‘majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.’ This supports the statement that animal testing is not justified in scientific research as it causes more damage to the animals’ wellbeing than its benefits for humans. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, ‘Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies. Many statistics point towards the fact that animal testing does not yield the desired results and benefits in humans as each distinctive species differ substantially at a biological level and is incredibly difficult to replicate how a human will react through animals. A prime example in the article by PETA [7] (PETA, 2018) is HIV and AIDS . In the article, the data shows that although 85 HIV and AIDS vaccines work on other animals, it has failed to prevent HIV and AIDS in humans themselves. This therefore supports the idea that animal testing is not a reliable method of treating dangerous diseases and overall does more harm than good. Furthermore, the article also states the disgusting and horrible conditions animals have to face when they are tested for our use – ‘they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated and psychologically traumatised. This causes unnecessary pain for the animals used in research that many deem to be unethical. Overall, this shows that PETA has a very harsh agenda against animal testing, showing plenty of evidence suggesting the link that animal testing does not benefit humans.

PETA is a well-established animal rights organisation and is the largest animal rights organisation in the world. It has more than 6.5 million members and supporters around the world. This shows that PETA is a well-supported organisation as well and therefore this greatly increases the credibility of PETA and the data it produces and puts out. Furthermore, the information from the source [7] (PETA, 2018) is well referenced showing that the information is likely to be true and credible. Due to PETA being the largest animal rights organisation, they have a good reputation of standing up for animal rights. Therefore, this shows that PETA has a vested interest to tell the truth as lying will cause their reputation to be greatly damaged. However due to the agenda PETA has against animal testing, this may introduce bias into their data. This reduces the credibility of PETA as their data is not likely to be reliable if bias is there. Furthermore, PETA focuses its attention on four areas of where animals suffer the most: in laboratories, the food industry, the clothing trade and in the entertainment industry. These areas are very controversial and therefore this may show that PETA could have a vested interest to lie in order to get people on their side about these particular topics.

In conclusion, all three sources have a different opinion about the justification of animal testing. The first source from the Home Office supports the idea of animal testing and provides quantitative data that shows that animal testing has had a beneficial effect on human medicine and health. The first source also states that animal testing has helped with animal conservation which is a very hot topic nowadays due to habitat loss from global warming and human activities. The second source also has a positive agenda towards the idea of animal testing, suggesting that some countries should be allowed to test animals if their country is less economically developed or if other alternative methods do not seem to work. The third source from PETA, however, has a completely different view to the other two sources, stating that animal testing is an unethical method of testing new medicines and cosmetics. It also counteracts the Home Office’s claims, as PETA states that animal testing does not benefit human health. Overall however, all three sources are published by organisations with a good reputation and are likely to be credible sources with reliable and accurate data.

In my opinion, I do believe that animal testing is unethical, and laws should be enforced to restrict certain types of animal testing, however it should not be banned completely as animal testing has been incredibly useful for medical research and we still need to rely on animals to go forward in the medical industry. However, I do believe that animal testing should be stopped for cosmetics as this is very unnecessary as cosmetics are used for enjoyment and therefore not as serious as medicine and drugs.