Animal Research Essay, Research Paper

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated

debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical.

Whether it is or isn’t, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed

to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the

benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for

humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument

between the different scientists’ views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be

expressed by the supporters. A well known scientist named Neal D. Barnard said,” The use of

animals for research and testing is only one of many investigative techniques available. We believe

that although animal experiments are sometimes intellectually seductive, they are poorly suited to

addressing the urgent health problems of our era, such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, AIDS and

birth defects.” He goes on further to say that animal experiments can not only mislead researchers

but even contribute to illnesses or deaths by failing to predict any toxic effect on drugs. The majority

of animals in laboratories are used for genetic manipulation, surgical intervention or injection of

foreign substances. Researchers produce solutions from these animal “models” and are adapting

them to human conditions. Unfortunately, these animal “models” can’t always be connected with the

human body thus creating problems. Many times, researchers induce strokes on animals in order to

test certain methods for curing. The downfall of this procedure is that a healthy animal that

experiences a sudden stroke does not undergo the slowly progressive arterial damage that usually

plays a crucial role in human strokes. In another illustration of the inaccuracy of animal research,

scientists in the 1960s deduced from many animal experiments that inhaled tobacco smoke did not

cause lung cancer. For many years afterward, the tobacco industry was able to use these studies to

delay government warnings and to discourage physicians from intervening in their patients’ smoking

habits. We all know now that this is totally untrue and that smoking is a large contributor to cancer. It

turns out that cancer research is especially sensitive to differences in physiology between humans and

other animals. Many animals, particularly rats and mice, synthesize within their bodies approximately

100 times the recommended daily allowance for humans of vitamin C, which is believed to help the

body ward off cancer. The stress of handling, confinement and isolation alters the animal’s mental

stability and introduces yet another experimental variable that makes any results from testing even

less valuable to human helping. In many cases, drugs and other substances are given to the test

animals but studies have shown considerable differences in the effects of these drugs on different

species. David Salsburg of Pfizer Central Research has noted that of 19 chemicals known to cause

cancer in humans when ingested, only seven caused cancer in mice and rats using the standards set

by the National Cancer Institute. This justifies that many substances that appeared safe in animal

studies and received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in humans later

proved dangerous to people. The drug milrinone, which raises cardiac output, increased survival of

rats with artificially induced heart failure; humans with severe chronic heart failure taking this drug had

a 30 percent increase in fatalities. Also, the antiviral drug fialuridine seemed safe in animal trials yet

caused liver failure in seven of 15 humans taking the drug (five of these patients died as a result of the

medication, and the other two received liver transplants). Scientists and the populous that do not

agree with the experimentation of animals believe in different methods. These techniques include

epidemiological studies, clinical intervention trials, astute clinical observation aided by laboratory

testing, human tissue and cell cultures, autopsy studies, endoscopic examination and biopsy, as well

as new imaging methods. In the last decade, scientists with these views have learned to respect the

animals for their own species observations and for their ability to communicate. On the reverse

aspect, many scientists are firm believers of animal research. This group believes that experiments

using animal have played a crucial role in the development of modern medical treatments, and they

will continue to be necessary as researchers seek to cure existing illnesses and respond to the

emergence of new diseases. Because of his knowledge of how contaminants caused wine and beer

to spoil, Pasteur became convinced that microorganisms were also responsible for diseases such as

chicken cholera and anthrax. To test his hypothesis, Pasteur examined the contents of the guts of

chickens suffering from cholera; he separated a possible infected microbe and then grew the

organism in culture. Samples of the culture given to healthy chicken and rabbits produced cholera,

thus proving that Pasteur had correctly identified the offending organism. In similar studies on rabbits

and guinea pigs, Pasteur isolated the microbe that causes anthrax and then developed a vaccine

against the deadly disease. With the information from animal experiments, he proved no only that

infectious diseases could be produced by microorganisms but also that immunization could protect

against the diseases. Following the work of Pasteur and others, scientist have established causes of

and vaccines for dozens of infectious diseases, including: diphtheria, tetanus, rabies, whooping

cough, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps and rubella. Research on animals has been vital

to numerous other areas in medicine. Open heart surgery, for example, which saves the lives of an

estimated 440,000 people every year in the U.S. alone, is now routine thanks 20 years of animal

research. The replacement of heart valves also emerged through the extraction of and study of animal

arteries. When it comes down to it, there are no basic differences between the physiology of

laboratory animals and humans. Both control their internal biochemistry by releasing endocrine

hormones that are all essentially the same; both humans and animals send out similar chemical

transmitters from nerve cells in the central and peripheral nervous systems, and both react in the

same way to infection or tissue injury. Whether the process of experimenting on laboratory animals is

right or wrong is an ongoing dispute between the scientific community. There are pros and cons to

both sides of the argument and who is to decide whether it should go on? I feel that animals were put

on this earth for many reasons. One of those reasons may be for the research of medical

experimentation and because the human race chose to take this idea in perspective, millions of

people’s lives have been saved. But that doesn’t mean that if scientists hadn’t started experimenting

on animals that they wouldn’t have found another way more superior to solve these problems.