NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Argument Research Paper Animal experimentation has been practiced for centuries to further our knowledge of the workings of the human body and to find cures for diseases (Chang 1998, p. 1). There is much contention in regard to animal testing despite its longtime practice in the United States and beyond, however, and both sides have compelling arguments to support their beliefs. Is animal testing truly a valuable tool in advancing medical research? Or is animal experimentation inhumane and archaic as animal rights activist insist?
What ethical basis does either side have for their opinions? Animal experimentation became widespread in the late 1800 s. Louis Pasteur developed a vaccine against rabies through his experiments with animals (Chang 1998, p. 5). Pasteur also isolated the microbe that causes anthrax and developed a vaccine against the deadly disease (Botting and Morrison 1997, p. 4). Joseph Lister, a British surgeon who pioneered the sterilization of instruments and dressings used to treat wounds was influenced greatly by Pasteur (p. 5) In 1875, Queen Victoria asked Lister to address the Royal Commissions inquiry into vivisection (the dissection of live animals) because of her disapproval of it. Though Lister, a Quaker with high moral standards, had publicly decried many cruelties of the Victorian era, he was unable to condemn vivisection.
His testimony to the Royal Commission stated that animal research had greatly helped him in his studies of medicine and restricting research would only prevent discoveries that would help humankind (p. 5, 6). So, animal experimentation through the years has clearly played an important role in furthering medical science. Through animal experimentation, researchers have discovered causes of and vaccines for many diseases, including diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, and rubella (Botting and Morrison 1997, p. 6). The creation of antibiotic therapies and antibacterial drugs has been largely due to animal research. Scientists successfully synthesized sulfanilamide and other sulfonamide drugs to help fight infection. The German scientist Gerhard Domain won the Nobel Prize in 1939 for his studies of sulfa drugs.
His discovery of their efficacy largely relied on studies of the drugs effect on mice (1997, p. 8). The advances that have been made in diabetes research, hypertension treatment, anti-ulcer drug development, open heart surgery, and organ transplants are, according to proponents of animal experimentation, due to use of animals in the research laboratory (Botting and Morrison 1997, p. 15). A common misconception of animal rights activists, say Botting and Morrison, is that there are fundamental differences between humans and animals. In reality, there are no basic differences in the physiology of lab animals and humans. Both control their internal biochemistry by releasing endocrine hormones that are all essentially the same.
Additionally, Botting and Morrison say that the criticisms that animal models of disease are not identical to humans are unjust. For example, though cystic fibrosis in mice may not exactly mimic the human condition (which varies considerably among patients anyway), it does provide a way to establish the optimal method of administering gene therapy to cure the disease (1997, p. 18, 19) Many animal rights activists also insist that there is mistreatment of animals that are used for research. In a position paper regarding animal testing in FDA regulated products, the FDA states the following: The FDA supports and adheres to the provisions of applicable laws and regulations and policies governing animal testing, including the Animal Welfare Act and the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Moreover, in all cases where animal testing is used, the FDA advocates that research and testing derive the maximum amount of useful information from the minimum number of animals and employ the most humane methods available within the limits of scientific capability (1992, p. 1, 2). The USDA, which also is responsible for a great deal of animal testing, claims to adhere to the aforementioned standards as well. (web 2000, p. 1). Not all medical researchers are in support of animal experimentation, however.
In a fact sheet available on line from PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the unreliability of results of tests done with lab animals and certain drugs is considerable (2000, p. 2). More than 205, 000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most after undergoing testing through studies of effect on animals. According to the General Accounting Office of the FDA, more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985 caused serious side effects that later caused the drugs to be either relabeled or removed from the market. Drugs approved for children were twice as likely to have serious post-approval risks as other medications (2000, p. 1). For instance, Protocol, a drug for heart disorders that was approved by the FDA was later pulled off the market for causing blindness in humans.
The drug did not have the same effect on animals it was tested on (2000, p. 3) Arsenic, which is lethal to humans has not caused cancer in other species (2000, p. 3). Animal testing may also prevent potentially useful drugs from being marketed. If Penicillin had been tested on guinea pigs (common laboratory subjects) because penicillin kills guinea pigs. Likewise, aspirin kills cats, while morphine, a depressant to humans, is a stimulant to cats, goats, and horses (2000, p. 2). This evidence alone demonstrates the unreliability of animal testing in this area. In an article in Scientific American, authors Neal Barnard and Stephen Kaufman (physicians and experts in the area of medical research) cite many examples of why Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading.
They argue the use of animals as models for human response is fraught with difficulties. They maintain that the differences in species are significant and are sure to cause uncertainty in attempting to find correlations between animal and human response (1999, p. 3). Misleading results are common, according to Barnard and Kaufman. The stress of handling, confinement, and isolation alters an animals physiology and introduces another experimental variable that makes extrapolating results to humans even more difficult (1999, p. 10). A study in the 1960 s conducted by scientists interested in the effects of tobacco on the lungs concluded that tobacco smoke did not cause lung cancer. This study involved numerous experiments on animals.
For many years afterward, the tobacco lobby was able to use these studies to delay government warnings and to discourage physicians from intervening in their patients smoking habits (Barnard and Kaufman 1999, p. 13). One must question the validity of animal research when such grave mistakes, such as this one, are made. Between 1990 and 1997, the USDA registered research laboratories reported killing at least 12, 892, 885 dogs, cats, primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, armadillos, rabbits, farm animals, bears, squirrels, wild rodents and other species. This number does not include hundreds of millions of rats, mice, frogs, or birds, It is interesting to note that these animals are not covered under the Animal Welfare Act (http: web 1998, p. 1) And the animal cruelty. com website reports that only 3 % of medical advances in this century are a result of animal research (1999, p. 5).
In fact, much of the animal experimentation conducted is senseless. At Ucla's Brain Research Institute, in an experiment to demonstrate that deaf cats meow louder than cats with hearing, kittens aural canals were destroyed, and then researchers measured the loudness of their cries (web 1998, p. 15). Although animal rights activists have some cause for alarm, animal experimentation is a must and cannot be dismissed. The fact that human beings are still dying due to incurable diseases should be reason enough to still implement animal testing. David Bender author of Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints stipulates: Scientist feel it is essential for the public to understand that had scientific research been restrained in the first decade of the 20 th century as antivivisectionists and activist were then and are today urging, many millions of Americans alive and healthy today would never have been born or would have suffered a premature death. Their parents or grandparents would have died from diphtheria, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, diabetes, appendicitis, and countless other diseases and disorders.
Contrary to what many believe, humans are not the only ones benefiting from these tests. Both animals and the environment also profit from these methods of testing. The practice of animal testing has been a concern to both scientists and animal rights activists for many years. Although alternatives to animal testing do exist, they are not yet far enough developed to serve as an adequate substitute.
With animal testing comes a few major concerns to both scientist and animal rights activist alike, but because of animal research science has been able to diagnose and treat some of the deadliest and most life threatening diseases of our century. The concern of scientists is that the animal rights activist movement can cause set backs in the vital testing that needs to be accomplished so cures can be found. Although necessary, some of these tests can be considered cruel. According to Bernard Rollin, Animals do experience and remember pain (Harris).
Take for instance the Draize test. Draize test rated eye irritants according to the level of inflammation a substance causes when applied to a rabbits eyes. Another test for systemic toxicity; it measures acute toxicity by determining the exact dose specimen is exposed to. This test kills roughly half the animals it is administered to. One can see how cruel and inhumane these tests can be even when you are in favor of animal experimentation. Due to these tests, groups such as the Animal Liberation Front and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) have been formed.
In an extreme measure the Animal Liberation Front broke into a building on the East Lancing campus in Michigan and set fire to an animal testing lab. Years of research literally went up in smoke; some of which can never be replaced. This type of behavior is unacceptable no matter how strongly you are against an issue. These beliefs are not shared by the Animal Liberation Front.
Scott Plus, a psychologist at Wesleyan University, stated, The first survey on animal rights activists polled 574 activists. Nearly 80 % valued non human life as much as human life: 85 % wanted to eliminate all animal research and more than 60 % were in favor of lab break-ins. How people can feel this way knowing how much animal testing has helped the human race is beyond many. This method of testing must continue at all costs to save lives (Harris) Although animal testing has brought forth many treatments, advocates against testing claim there are alternative methods which can be used with considerable success.
In-Vitro testing is one alternative which is used in place of animal testing. In Vitro, or in glass, pertains to a biological process taking place in an artificial environment. Another form of In-Vitro is using analyses of bacteria in a Petri dish. By viewing the different reactions to bacteria when introduced to other chemicals, scientists can determine the chemicals effects. Scientists have found a way to eliminate the curiosity test done on rabbits by using a skin-like membrane, rather than pouring the actual chemical on the rabbit itself.
One scientist states, The test gages corrosively according to the time required for a chemical sample to break through (Harris). Not only does this method save the lives of countless rabbits, it also substantially decreases the cost per test. Biotechnology is yet another weapon used in the search for alternatives. A perfect example to illustrate this method is a home pregnancy test.
A generation ago, the only way to test...
Free research essays on topics related to: animal rights activists, animal testing, animal experimentation, people for the ethical treatment, ethical treatment of animals
Research essay sample on Animal Rights Activists Ethical Treatment Of Animals
