Animal Testing
Introduction
Animal testing refers to the use of animals in experiments. Most of the animals used for testing include mice, birds, frogs and fish. All over the world, tens of millions of animals are used for testing and further, some of these animals are bred purposely for testing (Breen, 1993). Most of the animals used in experiments are either used in pure research – which investigates the behavior, function and development of organisms – and applied research, which is often carried out by pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies (Hayhurst, 2000). While most achievements in the medical world have relied on animal testing in various ways, it is not the only means through which the medical world can make advances. Indeed, animal testing should be stopped and alternatives used in order to ensure that that the medical field continues making progress in different areas.
Problem Statement
As suggested above, there are numerous problems associated with animal testing. To begin with, capturing or rearing animals for use in the laboratory and then killing them after several experiments is completely unethical according to majority of the population (Watson, 2009). While some may argue that the choice of supporting or opposing animal testing is an emotional one, inhuman treatment of animals should simply not be condoned, making the choice rather logical. Most animal testing includes unnecessary cruelty to animals that most times results in their death (Swami, Furnham, & Christopher). This is wrong by any other standards, as seen in the removal of pets from their owners in cases of cruelty. Why then should pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies be allowed to test their products on animals, treating them cruelly in the process? Most animals are used for testing because this is the cheapest way for companies to avoid liability safety issues (Swami, Furnham, & Christopher). However, there are other alternatives to animal testing, which will be discussed later, that companies can use to test their products and carry out experiments.
Another problem that arises from animal testing is the unreliability of results of experiments that employ animals. Firstly, according to Hakkinen & Green, an animal’s body may react differently to certain drugs and other products compared to the human body (2002). Secondly, the conditions under which the animal was tested – captivity, fright and stress – may yield different results to those that would have been obtained had the animal been free. This may mislead scientists to believe that the results obtained are adequate. The two scenarios above show that the results obtained from experiments that employ animal testing are not necessarily accurate nor are they reliable (Hakkinen & Green, 2002). This brings to question again, why animals should endure captivity, pain and cruelty under scientists’ hands if the results obtained are not accurate, therefore not of any value.
Animal testing also presents another problem; cost (Breen, 1993). Animals have to be captured or bred, housed, fed, and given medication in order to ensure that they are their optimum level. This produces a controlled environment, which is important to ensure that results are not exposed to outside influences. However, this controlled environment is quite expensive, as most conditions required do not occur naturally therefore have to be manipulated. In addition, obtaining the animals themselves is an expensive task as they are often bought from breeding facilities that charge high prices for the animals. Additionally, animals often have to be kept under these conditions for prolonged periods, meaning that additional costs are often incurred. Creating and maintaining this controlled environment, as well as acquisition of the right animal, are all expensive tasks therefore the medical industry should consider other alternatives to animal testing if only to cut costs.
Finally, animal testing should be discouraged because sometimes, it lacks relevance to the human society. This differs from the problem of unreliability because while there may be an aim to be achieved in the first instance, here, there really is not any. According to Hayhurst, some experiments carried out in laboratories fail to show the connection to the human society – which is the basis of these kinds of experiments – thereby being rendered useless (2000). In addition, some human conditions are unique to human beings and are a result of the make-up of the human society therefore using animals in tests of such conditions is irrelevant. Such conditions include alcoholism, drug addiction and smoking, and affect people largely due to the society and lifestyles. Alternative methods should therefore be used in laboratory experiments of these conditions.
Feasible Solutions
Even though those who argue for animal testing say it is the most effective way for experiments to yield results, the medical and cosmetic fields should consider other alternatives. The first such alternative to animal testing is use of non-animal methods in experiments whenever possible. Another alternative to animal testing is the use of human-based approaches (Swami, Furnham, & Christopher, 2008). Indeed, recent innovations in the field of biotechnology have resulted in change of practice in many research institutions. However, finding an alternative to animal testing is only viable if scientists and other researchers are willing to change. Once the will is there, then alternatives can be found. There are in fact, hundreds of alternatives for different experiments. What’s more, research has shown that alternatives to animal testing are far cheaper options than the maintenance of a controlled environment for animals (Hayhurst, 2000).
Definition of the Solution
The first solution advocates the use of chemical and computer simulators, especially given recent technological advancements, instead of animals. As observed in the industry, replacement of pigs with computer-operated mannequins in testing for trauma caused by car accidents has been successful (Hakkinen & Green, 2002). Other areas where these techniques have been applied include experiments relating to asthma, combat trauma, heart problems as well as determining the level of toxicity in drugs. This shows that some experiments for which animals are used can be replaced with other non-animal means.
Regarding the second solution, human skin that has been left over from surgery can for instance be used to measure the rate of chemical penetration through the skin. Moreover, the effects of skin irritants are reversible therefore some researchers have designed skin patch tests to be used on human skin as there are no long-term effects (Hakkinen & Green, 2002). Other human-based approaches include use of donated human blood for testing during various procedures, as well as micro dosing, which is the administering of an extremely small amount of the drug being tested to a human body in order to provide information as to how safe it is and how the body reacts to it. These human-based approaches, which combine use of cadavers, extracted body parts and substances, and live humans, are another alternative to animal testing. However, these need to be regulated in order to ensure that human beings are not exploited for use in laboratories.
Anticipate Question
One of the arguments that those who are against or skeptical of finding alternatives to animal testing pose is that it can also be used to benefit animals (Breen, 1993). In that case, where animal testing is used to benefit the animals themselves, then it is ethically okay to carry out humane testing. However, cruel animal testing for the benefits of humans is completely wrong.
An additional issue raised by those in support of animal testing is that relating to the other techniques, where they say that they are not advanced enough (Watson, 2009. However, how would one expect the techniques to become advanced if they are never used? In order to ensure that these techniques become highly developed and specialized, we need to use them as frequently as possible because only then would we discover their limitations, and subsequent solutions.
Conclusion
All solutions provided above, as well as the problems associated with animal testing cited, show that the practice is fast becoming outdated and should be replaced with more humane and modern methods. After all, advancements in science should also mean movement from outdated practices. Scientists using animal testing need to look at all the problems associated with it, which include ethical, financial, irrelevance together with unreliability and choose effective alternatives. Therefore, animals need not be used in testing.
References
Breen, B. (1993). Why we need animal testing. Garbage, 5 (2), 38-50.
Hakkinen, P.J & Green, D.K (2002). Alternatives to animal testing: information resources via the Internet and World Wide Web. Toxicology, 173, 3-11
Hayhurst, C. (2000). Animal testing: the animal rights debate. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Swami, V., Furnham, A & Christopher, A.N. (2008). Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 269-276
Watson, S. (2009). Animal testing: Issues and ethics. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]