Animal Testing Essay, Research Paper

Anderson 1

A Look at Animal Testing

They’re Pinky and the Brain, They’re Pinky and the Brain, One is a genius; the other’s insane, they’re laboratory mice, Their genes have been spliced, They’re Pinky, They’re Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain (NBC).

This is the theme song to a popular cartoon dealing with experiments carried out on animals. In the cartoon one mouse is made very smart and wants to take over the world while the other is clearly not as smart. While the cartoon makes jokes, the reality is that mice and other animals are being used for medical test everyday. For the past 20 years, there has been an ongoing heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research are 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 cost includes animal pain, distress and death where as the benefits includes 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. A well-known scientist named Neal

Anderson 2

Barnard stated, “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” (Murray 7). 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 (8).

On the other hand, other scientist believes that research on animals has been vital to numerous 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 to 20 years of animal research (Whitelaw 31). In spite of this remarkable advancement, animal rights activists question the validity of using animals for research, challenging the moral and ethic issues it raises. Their argument rest on the dogma that the lives of animals equate to human lives and therefore using them is a profound violation of animal rights. While animal experimentation may appear vital in prolonging and improving the quality of life for humans, the truth is, the use of animals for research and testing is wrong and should be banned.

The problem with testing drugs on animals is every year nearly 100 million animals die in research laboratories at the hands of curious scientist who perform

Anderson 3

outdated and inaccurate tests that prove no benefit to humans or animals (Degrazia 48). Before these animals die, they are routinely burned, scaled, poisoned, starved, given electric shocks, addicted to drugs, subjected to near freezing temperatures, dosed with radioactive elements, driven insane, and deliberately inflicted with diseases such as cancer, diabetes, oral infections, stomach ulcers, herpes, and AIDS. Their eyes are surgically removed; their brains and spinal cords damaged and their bones broken. The usage of anesthesia is not mandated by law, and consequently, thus is rarely administered (50). What would you think if when you hear the brand names Procter & Gillette, Revlon or Cover Girl? What you probably don’t think of is the brutal treatment to animals? Those three companies test all of their products on animals. Animal testing is a serious problem; we need to make a change. Taken from the article “Animal Revolution”, written by Shawn Zeller, Beagle puppies are forced to inhale smoke (Zeller 12). This could be your dog. Many scientist claims that there are no alternatives to animal experimentation that can give the same results that animal testing can provide.

In certain research investigations, cell tissue, organ cultures, and computer can be used at least in the preliminary phrases of the investigation (Matfield 36). However, in many experimental situations, culture techniques and computer models do not capture the physiological complexity of the whole animal. Some examples of where animals are necessary in research include the development of a vaccine against HIV and improvement of methods to relieve mental stress and anxiety (36). These challenges can only be addressed by research with animals. Humans are the only alternative to animals

Anderson 4

and when faced with this alternative, most people prefer the use on animals as the research model.

Animal research is also necessary to maintain our society’s well being. Many people think it is morally wrong but when the advantages are considered with disadvantages, the god outweighs the bad. Animal research is necessary to continue progress in human life. If other methods were available they would be given a fair chance but for now only animal experimentation works best. If all of the advances in humans health were taken away our society would still be in a primitive age. Animal research has taken us out of that age. The American Medical Association believes that research involving animals is absolutely essential to maintaining and improving the health of human beings (Megan 53). They point out, the virtually every advance in medical science in the 20th century, from antibiotics to organ transplant, has been achieved either directly or indirectly through the use of animals in laboratory experiments. They also emphasize that animal research holds the key for solution to AIDS, cancer, heart disease, aging and congenital defects (53). Lastly, they insist that, the results of these experiments have been the elimination or control of many infectious diseases. This has meant a longer, healthier, better life with much less pain and suffering for humans.

On the other hand, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, many advances have been made in science without the testing of animals. Examples of this are the development of the relationship between smoking and cancer, the isolation of AIDS,

Anderson 5

development of anti-depressants, and the discovery of penicillin (Anderson 647). Why do companies need to test cosmetics on animals if they don’t need animals to find the virus that causes AIDS? No law requires that cosmetics or household products be tested on animals. Nevertheless, by six o’ clock tonight, hundreds of animals will have their skin, eyes, or stomachs unnecessarily burned or destroyed. This year many animals will suffer and die to produce new versions of detergent, deodorant, hairspray, lipstick, nail polish, and a variety of other products we use in everyday life (650).

One of the tests many companies use is called the Drazie test. The main candidate for this experiment is the albino rabbit. They are preferred because they are docile, cheap, and their eyes do not shed tears. This is done so the chemicals placed in the rabbit’s eyes do not wash out. They are also the test subjects of choice because their eyes are clear, making it easier to observe the destruction of the eye tissue. During each test the rabbits are immobilized and a solid or liquid is placed in the lower lid of each rabbit (Doncaste 302). These substances can range from mascara to after-shave to oven cleaner. No other attempt is made to treat the rabbits or seek any antidotes. The rabbits that survive the Drazie test may then be used as subjects for skin inflammation tests. Everyday of the year, hundreds of thousands of innocent fully conscious animals are tortured to death, dying slowly in agonizing pain. There is no reason for the suffering.

Drug testing on animals is inaccurate and does not benefit humans at all. Animals including, but not limited to, dogs, cats, mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, and monkeys are all used for animal testing. More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most after undergoing the most common unreliable test method

Anderson 6

still in use (Landry 262). The current system of drug testing has placed consumers in a dangerous predicament. According to the General Accounting Office, more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 caused serious sides effects that later caused the drug to be either re-labeled or removed from the market (263). David Salsburg of Pfizer Center Research has noted that of the 19 chemicals known to cause cancer in humans when ingested, only seven caused cancer in mice and rats using standards set by the National Institute. This justifies that many substances that appeared safe in animal studies later proved dangerous to people (Rowan 22). The following drugs passed safe in animal experiments but proved tragic consequences in humans. Opren is a drug that caused 3,500 people to suffer serious side effects including damaged skin, eyes, liver, and kidneys. Thalidomide caused about 10,000 birth defects worldwide. Clioquinol caused 30,000 cases of blindness and physical paralysis and thousands of deaths. Penicillin, an antibiotic to humans, kills guinea pigs (24).

Conversely, many drugs that are beneficial to humans are dangerous or even fatal to animals. This is obvious proof that testing on animals is unreliable, but sadistic tests still go on everyday. In another illustration of the inaccuracy of animal research, scientist in 1960’s 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 (Rowan 22). We all know now that this is totally untrue and that smoking is a large contributor to cancer. It turns out cancer research is

Anderson 7

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 (23). In many cases, drugs and other substances are given to the test animals, but studies have shown considerable differences in the effects of theses drugs on different species.

History has shown that many important medical advances have been made by clinical research and close observations of human patients, not animals. There are countries that don’t use healthy animals to train veterinarians or teach surgical techniques. In England they use only sick or injured animals and most of their work on animal’s cadavers (Carson 11). Humans can give informed consent. Monkeys, dogs, rat, mice, rabbits, etc can’t. Many AIDS patients have said they are willing to try out new drugs so why not let them? In most cases the drugs will need to be tested on humans before the FDA will approve them anyway, and as stated in a previous paragraph, not all drugs work the same on humans as they do with animals.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine reports that sophisticated non-animal research methods is more accurate, less expensive, and less time consuming than traditional animal based research methods (Megan 59). Fewer accidental deaths caused by drugs and treatments would occur if stubborn bureaucrats and wealthy scientist would use the more accurate alternative. There are many alternative such as computer models to answer questions and guide animal search, Cell tissue culture, Microorganisms which have little or no capacity for pain or suffering, and Less poorly planned work if

Anderson 8

animal experimentation was eliminated. It would free up about 6.8 billion dollars that could be used for educational programs and medical assistance programs for low-income

individuals. Thus, helping more than 30 million U.S. citizens who cannot afford health insurance, rather than making animals sick. There will be nearly 275,000 animals dead this time tomorrow that where not dead right now. The numbers are real and this happening in our world everyday is only because it is a multibillion- dollar income for some people and is legal in the U.S (60). The problem that we are faced with today is not a difficult one to fix. The technology is available for us to use and we should take advantage of our advanced alternate methods.

On the other hand, animal researchers state that animal research is an integral part of today’s society when thinking of how much progress we have gained in human health with the use of animal experimentation. To date some forty-one Nobel prizes have been awarded to scientists whose achievements depended on laboratory animals (Goodwin 32). According to Frank Goodwin’s article “Banning Animal Testing May Be Hazardous To Your Health”, the four major goals of animal research are: to provide knowledge and to prevent and treat disease, to use animals as models for the study of actual diseases, to test potential therapies, diagnostic and surgical procedures and medical devices, and to test whether or not a newly developed drug is safe and effective (21). Goodwin claims that with these methods researchers were able to come up with vaccines such as polio, mumps, measles, rubella, and smallpox. There also would not be such important techniques such as open-heart surgery, brain surgery, coronary bypass, microsurgery,

Anderson 9

organ and correction of congenital heart defects (22). The list goes on about medical advances that required animal research. To take away animal research would also be to

halt our society ’s advancement of more procedures and more medicines to enhance the better living of humans.

Although the statements made above are true, species have differences which mean animal testing is often wasteful, useless, and even misleading, and is impossible to apply to humans with any certainty of the results. An example of the impossibility is the marketing of treatment for heart disease in 1970, which had been carefully tested on animals first, but caused serious side effects in humans, including permanent blindness, which had not appeared in any species of animals tested (Balls 20). The drug beta-blocker was finally withdrawn from the market in 1976 (23). Most of what we do animals we would never do to humans. Human’s morality must expand to acknowledge and respect the rights of non-human animals.

While animal experimentation may appear vital in prolonging and improving the quality of life for humans, the truth is, the use of animals for research and testing is wrong and should be banned. Everyday of the year, hundreds of thousands of innocent animals are tortured to death, dying slowly in agonizing pain. There is no reason for this suffering. Animal testing is inhumane and no animal should be forced to endure such torture. It must always be remembered that no amount of testing can make a drug absolutely safe. The suffering animals go through for humans are not worth the sacrifices. Other methods must be used; surgeons should learn their skills by using artificial human models or even human volunteers instead of animals. Animals have

Anderson 10

much to offer us, if we could only learn to give them care and respect they deserve. They have a right to live, and to exist without the constant pain and fear caused by human experimentation. Mankind will continue to haunted until each persons humanity awakens to the fact it is wrong to cause animals harm for our own selfish benefits. We must realize that the way we treat animals is morally wrong and we must stop our parsimonious ways of animal injustice before it is too late to make a change.