To begin, research using animals may lead to new medications being discovered. Examples of medications that have been the result of animal testing are Penicillin, several asthma treatments, cancer and HIV drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, and insulin.
There are a good number of animal research opponents who are primarily against animals used in cosmetics testing, but not against using animals for testing with human health benefits. The most significant research today using animals pertains to diabetes and cancer using primarily mice. Secondarily, rats, pigs, and sheep are used. Birds and fish are used less frequently.
The animal which shares the most similar patterns for diabetes is a cat; cats who become overweight do indeed become predisposed to the same kind of diabetes that humans do in the same situation. In addition, animals have similar enough bodily constitutions to make the comparisons relevant and effective. If an animal is chosen for a particular line of research, its DNA structure has been determined to be similar to humans.
In this way, humans may be prevented from the harms that are caused to the animals during the testing. The animal tests serve as a precursor to the commencing trial tests done on humans. Also, if the research conducted is beneficial to humans, it may well be beneficial to animals. If a cure for a condition is discovered, the animal reaps the benefits of the cure as well.
Through animal testing, drugs have been developed to treat human and veterinary ailments. Using animals in research is a costly methodology. Because it cannot be fully replaced by computer simulations or models, the argument is that live testing will continue to be needed. It enhances the safety of the products being released. Animal testing helps to lessen the risk of an unplanned event occurring when humans use or ingest the products that are part of the animal testing experiment.
Drugs can be potentially and immediately harmful to humans, especially during the testing phase of a product, so animal testing allows for researchers to determine the quality and safety of a product before humans take it. There are no other testing alternatives. Animals are the closest thing to humans on our planet. If one assumes that human life is more valuable than animal life, then performing experiments on animals makes sense because it offers the chance to explore how the various living systems within a body may react when exposed to a test sample.
Animals and humans share numerous systems, including the central nervous system, and the data collected can be used to improve products. Some animals are almost carbon copies of humans. With similar organs, circulatory systems, and reactions to an illness, researchers can look at how animals react and be able to make comfortable prediction about how humans might react.
It offers a different set of legalities. Testing humans with invasive experiments could result in death. Although there will always be a risk when testing new items, even after animal research has provided positive data, the risks to a human without animal research would be incredibly high.
Through animal research, the legality of accidentally causing the death of an animal is very different than what would occur with the accidental death of a human. It provides an opportunity to examine a complete life cycle.
In many countries, the average life expectancy of a human exceeds 70 years of age. Some nations have an average life expectancy of over 80 years. In comparison, a mouse has a lifespan of years, allowing researchers the opportunity to study through research and experimentation how something may affect the life cycle. Any long-term research involves mice and rats because of this unique aspect to the research.
There are protections in place for the animals. Although animal research may have ethical concerns, the US has regulated its practice since Veterinarians are required to inspect the living conditions of the animals. Committees must approve animal research and be held responsible for the humane treatment of each animal. Researchers can study the working human brain using advanced imaging techniques and can even take measurements down to a single neuron. However, the return on that investment has been dismal.
A survey of 4, experimental cancer drugs developed between and found that more than 93 percent failed after entering the first phase of human clinical trials, even though all had been tested successfully on animals. If extrapolating from rats to mice is so problematic, how can we extrapolate results from mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys, and other animals to humans? The NCI now uses human cancer cells , taken by biopsy during surgery, to perform first-stage testing for new anti-cancer drugs, sparing the 1 million mice the agency previously used annually and giving us all a much better shot at combating cancer.
Furthermore, according to the World Health Organization, cancer is largely preventable, yet most health organizations that focus on cancer spend a pittance on prevention programs, such as public education. Epidemiological and clinical studies have determined that most cancers are caused by smoking and by eating high-fat foods, foods high in animal protein, and foods containing artificial colors and other harmful additives.
We can beat cancer by taking these human-derived, human-relevant data into account and implementing creative methods to encourage healthier lifestyle choices. While funding for animal experimentation and the number of animals used in experiments continues to increase, the U. A review paper co-authored by a Yale School of Medicine professor in the prestigious medical journal The BMJ documented the overwhelming failure of experiments on animals to improve human health.
While incidences of heart disease and strokes have recently shown slight declines—because of a change in lifestyle factors, such as diet and smoking, rather than any medical advances—cancer rates continue to rise, and alcohol- and drug-treatment centers, prenatal care programs, community mental health clinics, and trauma units continue to close because they lack sufficient funds.
More human lives could be saved and more suffering prevented by educating people about the importance of avoiding fat and cholesterol, quitting smoking, reducing alcohol and other drug consumption, exercising regularly, and cleaning up the environment than by all the animal tests in the world. No experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited—and painkillers are not even required.
Even when alternatives to the use of animals are available, U. Because the AWA specifically excludes rats, mice, birds, and cold-blooded animals, more than 95 percent of the animals used in laboratories are not even covered by the minimal protection provided by federal laws. Between and , nearly half a million animals—excluding mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals—were subjected to painful experiments and not provided with pain relief. A survey by researchers at Newcastle University found that mice and rats who underwent painful, invasive procedures, such as skull surgeries, burn experiments, and spinal surgeries, were provided with post-procedural pain relief only about 20 percent of the time.
In addition to the actual pain of experiments, a comprehensive view of the situation for animals in laboratories should take into account the totality of the suffering imposed on them, including the stress of capture, transportation, and handling; the extreme confinement and unnatural living conditions; the deprivation that constitutes standard husbandry procedures; and the physical and psychological stress experienced by animals used for breeding, who endure repeated pregnancies, only to have their young torn away from them, sometimes immediately after birth.
Animals in laboratories endure lives of deprivation, isolation, stress, trauma, and depression even before they are enrolled in any sort of protocol. This fact is especially apparent when one considers the specialized needs of each species. In nature, many primates, including rhesus macaques and baboons, stay for many years or their entire lives with their families and troops.
Cons of Animal Testing. Animal Welfare Act Is Bypassed The Animal Welfare Act, or AWA, was signed in in order to protect certain animals from cruel treatment. The animals that are chosen for testing are not covered in this act. This is because they carefully choose animals whose rights do not fall under the jurisdiction of the AWA.
Cons of Animal Research. Using animals in research is a costly methodology. Often it is not even possible without the companies or organizations asking for outside funding from third parties. The costs of feeding, housing, caring for, and treating the animals must be considered, as well as the price of the animals in the first place.
An example of this issue is aspirin. It is a dangerous product for animals to have, but think of the millions of lives that have been improved or saved because of the drug. Insulin causes animal birth defects, but it saves lives every day. That is the reality of animal research. The pros and cons of animal research will always be controversial. Jun 13, · Animal testing is a process that has been going on for centuries for numerous reasons, such as developing medical treatments, determining the toxicity of certain medications, confirming the safety of a product designed for humans, and other health care moiprods.tk: April Klazema.
Fewer animals are used in research than as food for humans Compared to the amount of chicken, cattle, sheep and pigs that humans eat, relatively few of them are used in experimentation. With consideration to the medical progress and advancement such tests provided, it is a small price to pay. Recommended Posts. Alternative to FEGLI Option B. Recent Posts. Alcoholism and Verbal Abuse; Hyponatremia and Alcoholism.