More than a million protected animals are reported to the USDA every year, but that only accounts for about five to fifteen percent of the lab animals used (Williams 180). The other eighty-five to ninety-five are “unprotected” animals, such as mice, birds, amphibians, and reptiles (Williams 180). That equates to more twenty million creatures being murdered each year (Williams 180-181). These high numbers easily prove how needlessly excessive the research industry is. Not only is the number of animals killed alarmingly high, but way too many lives are taken for the sake of unsuccessful experiments. Because mice and rats are generally small, cheap, and easily replaced due to their high fertility rates, scientists feel that they are the perfect candidates for lab and product testing (Williams 181). Unfortunately, because these rodents can reproduce so quickly due to their short reproductive cycles, there are too many mice reproduced which leads to millions of mice being killed every single year because scientists have no use for them (Williams 181). Scientists have engineered a “knockout gene," a gene in a mouse that has been replaced by another, in order to study cancer and diseases, such as heart disease (Williams 181). But as previous research has stated, the success rate of animal experiments is one in ten, but because scientists have yet to find a cure to cancer and heart disease, so the success rate of these tests are zero. This validates that this kind of research on animals in useless and ineffective.
Rabbits are the most commonly used in laboratories because of they are fairly easy to handle, inexpensive, and have short reproductive cycles (William 181). They are mostly subjected to the Draize Test in which about 100 milligrams of a liquid substance are dropped in their eyes, which are clipped open, while their heads are restrained in stocks (PETA). Because they are being held in one place while this happens, the rabbits attempt to escape, but in turn, often break their necks. New Zealand rabbits have extremely sensitive eyes but do not have tears, which is an advantage to researchers because the tears will not wash out the substances they put in their eyes (William 181). They leave these liquids in the rabbit’s eyes for days, sometimes up to seven to eighteen days, to determine how they were affected and how much blood appeared (PETA). The most common effects that these rabbits are forced to endure are redness, inflammation of the eyelid, ulceration, swelling of the iris, bleeding, and even blindness (PETA). This is animal abuse because they are purposely causing these defenseless animals pain and suffering for days just to see how effective eye drops are. It is unreasonable and outrageous to put rabbits through so much pain for such an extended period of time to find temporary relief of eye irritation. One study actually concluded that the tests that were run on rabbits over predicted how they human eye would be effected by certain substances (PETA). Because many of the experiments have inconclusive and inaccurate results, effective alternatives to animal testing should be researched and looked into in order to avoid these results.
Rabbits have also been used to find vaccines and medication for rabies, eye infections, diabetes, and epilepsy in addition to being used for cancer research, another dead end journey (Williams 182). The test they use for cancer research is called “research bioassay” in which they are exposed to a variety of chemicals for their entire life just to see if they will develop cancer (PETA). One research bioassay costs about $3 million dollars, but the false positive rate of these experiments is around seventy percent, an alarmingly high number (PETA). Not only is it completely unnecessary to spend such a large amount of money that could easily be going into finding alternatives to animal testing, but with such a high false positive rate, it is absolutely pointless to continue with these tests. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act does not require that products be tested on animals for safety reasons, it is only recommended (PETA). This means that alternatives to animal testing are recognized and accepted by this Act.
Many other kinds of animals are used in testing including guinea pigs, hamsters, farm animals, dogs, and primates. Guinea pigs are used for researching tuberculosis, antibiotics, blood transfusions, and valve replacements (Williams 182). Sheep and pigs are also used for valve replacements, which leads to the question of how essential it is to research the same topic on many different kinds of animals (Williams 182). It does not seem necessary to do this same experiment on a variety of animals. Dogs are used a lot for toxicity tests, surgical teaching programs, and dental and heart experiments (Williams 182). Dogs are one of the more controversial lab animals because they are such popular companion animals, which means that more people are against it as opposed to mice which are seen as disposable. Chimpanzees are also highly controversial lab animals because they are highly intelligent and social animals in addition to being an endangered species (Williams 185). Researchers claim that chimpanzees are useful in AIDS studies, but AIDS in chimps are asymptomatic, meaning that symptoms are not expressed (Williams 185). These tests are simply ridiculous because, even though their DNA is similar to humans, AIDS does not affect them in the same way, which leads to inconclusive tests.
Animals used for research are severely abused physically and psychologically. They are crammed in small, cold cages their whole life with little interaction with the outside world (Williams 191). They do not even have any comfort, such as a bed or toys, in their metal cages; just solitude and loneliness (Williams 192). Because of this, an array of abnormal behavior develops, including pacing, self mutilation, and staring (Williams 192). All these actions are a result of excessive stress caused not only by the procedures they undergo, but also by their environment. This just adds to the numerous reasons that prove animal testing is wrong and unnecessary, especially since such a large number of animals are hurt and killed because of it.
The animals used in medical experimentation are known by many to be used to research vaccines, asthma, AIDS, organ transplants, cancer, and antibiotics. But what most people do not know is that animals are also used for psychological testing (Williams 196). Using live animals, scientists study depression, anxiety, hallucinations, and bulimia among many other disorders to learn about these disorders in humans (Williams 196). How well studying animal disorders can help learn about human ailments can be a bit of a stretch, especially since most animals do not interact in the same way that humans do. Most of these experiments most likely end up being inconclusive and unsuccessful. Researchers even go to the extent of surgically altering part of a lab animal’s brain to see how differently they will act (Williams 196). This is pointless because it is not very often that a human being or animal has an accident that results in brain damage. Learning how individuals would act after accident does not always help learn how to help them go back to normal. Healing the brain is difficult and to put animals through such pain in hopes of being able to reverse that damage is doubtful.
Many people can easily agree that certain types of animal testing are necessary in order to discover cures to diseases and to make useful medications. Vaccines for rabies, malaria, Herpes Simplex, Polio, and many other life threatening diseases have been discovered with the aid of animal testing (Shandilya). It is arguable that these cures were uncovered with the aid of animal testing. There is an unfortunate belief among many that an animal’s life must be compromised in order for humans to lessen their own pain and suffering (Nair). Most people would choose saving their loved ones over sacrificing the lives on some or many lab animals, so they believe that sometimes, animal testing is acceptable. Experiments on animals have become beneficial to drug testing because it helps researchers learn how these medications affect human beings so that they can prevent any side effects that may be caused by the medicine (Nair). This is a valid argument for why animal testing is a beneficial practice; it helps prevent humans from getting injured or killed because of a medication that was meant to assist them. While this reason is a strong argument for why animal testing is useful, these animals are still put through intense pain and suffering. If the animals that were forced to go under experimentation were better cared for and lived in better conditions, it would be slightly more acceptable. They should have larger, warmer places to live, not small metal cages, and toys that stimulate their minds. They should also be handled and treated in a respectful, kind mannered way that will make their lives more bearable. But the chances of all these happening are slim, so alternatives of animal testing should be looked into and researched so that less animals go through the pain and stress that come along with laboratories.
There are many alternatives to animal research, including “computer simulations, in vitro tests, and epidemiological studies” (Williams 202). These substitutes are helpful for studying diseases, psychological disorders, medication effects, and so much more. It is more reasonable to use these options because all these animals would not have to be produced and killed. The John Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing in working to discover other alternatives that the animal testing industry is willing to use that would also be accepted by animal welfare groups (Williams 202). The Institute for In Vitro Sciences is offers in vitro services to researchers to encourage substitute methods to testing on animals (Williams 202). Because of companies like these two and many others, hundreds of companies no longer test on animals (Williams 202). The Good Cell Culture Practice is also making in vitro options in order to Once more alternatives are discovered and more companies can offer their services, a much smaller number of animals will be used for medical research and the more fund they receive from the public, the quicker they will be able to find a change to biomedical testing on animals (Gruber). This is a major problem that many companies have to deal with because it is more costly to develop a computer or in vitro alternative. It is much easier for researchers to buy cheap animals to experiment on. While other alternatives are being formed, people can offer to take part in psychological studies to help researchers learn about the human mind and what effects certain things have on it (Williams 203).
About the Author: Arti Sharma is an animal science major from Northern California who would like to be a veterinarian or go abroad and study the behavior of wild cats.
Works Cited
Conn, P. Michael., and James V. Parker. The Animal Research War. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2008. Print.
Gruber, FP. "Alternatives to Animal Experimentation in Basic Research." PubMed. 2004. Web.
03 Mar. 2011. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15586255>.
Nair, Tulika. "Animal Experimentation." Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web. Web.
11 Mar. 2011. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-experimentation.html>.
PETA. "Product Testing: Toxic & Tragic | PETA.org." People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA): The Animal Rights Organization | PETA.org. Web. 08 Mar. 2011. <http://www.peta.org/issues/Animals-Used-for-Experimentation/product-testing-toxic-tragic.aspx>.
Shandilya, Ranjan. "Animal Testing Pros." Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web.
Web. 11 Mar. 2011. <http://www.buzzle.com/articles/animal-testing-pros.html>.
Williams, Erin E., and Margo DeMello. Why Animals Matter: the Case for Animal Protection.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment