FREE ESSAY ON ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
Holly Anderson was a strong supporter for animal rights. When she was a little girl, she
saw a cat get run over by a car. As she watched it die slowly, some young boys were
poking it with a stick. She screamed, "Why don't you leave that poor cat alone!" One boy
replied, "We wanted to see if maggots will come out of its nose! Hey Jimmy!" the boy
yelled at his friend, "Go get your firecrackers!" Holly started crying and ran away. From
then on, she viewed all scientists who use animals to experiment on as immature little
boys just trying to get a kick out of blood and guts. Not only did she not like what the
scientists did to the animals, she was so close-minded about the issue, she hadn't even
considered the other side, and she refused to. Now Holly is thirty-five years old and is
happily married with five children and just as many cats. One summer day, she walked
upstairs to wake up her children. She walked into the room to see them all very sick in
their beds. They were all running a high fever and were having trouble breathing. She
took them all to the emergency room where they were tested immediately. After a whole
day's waiting, she was called into a meeting with all the doctors. They told her that her
children had contracted a deadly virus that they had never seen before and that they
might not live unless the origin of this virus was found. They asked her if she had any
animals and how many. She told them she had five cats. The doctors all talked privately
and finally made a decision. "I'm sorry, Ms. Anderson, but I think we're going to need
those cats to find the serum for the virus. "What are you going to do with them?" she
asked. They then told her they were going to take the cats to the lab where all of them
would go through a series of experiments until they found the problem. They also
explained they couldn't guarantee that any of the cats would live through the tests or
that they wouldn't feel any pain. When they told her this, she pictured in her head a
bunch of scientists standing around her cats poking them with needles everywhere while
the cats were restrained and struggling for breath. She shuddered at the thought of her
cats going through that, but even more at her children dying. It took her less than five
minutes to decide because she realized that animal experimentation could save her
children's lives.
A few days later she left the hospital with her children, who were back to their normal,
healthy selves. She felt bad for her five cats that were dead, but it was a good feeling
having all five of her children there at the funeral for Fluffy, Furry, Frisky, Grumpy,
and Stinky. She now understood the other side. She didn't exactly approve of it now, but
she knew that animal testing must go on for her children's children. Holly finally
realized that animal testing must go on because it benefits society. 
There are many reasons a person should agree with animal experimentation, but there are
also a few reason why some people are against animal experimentation. A few of these
reasons are that animal experimentation is cruel and inhumane, animal experimentation is
under regulated, and that there are alternatives to animal experimentation. 
Many people claim that animal experimentation is cruel and inhumane. It is said that many
labs are unsanitary and small. Animals have been seen in cages with unbandaged wounds
(Day 67). It is also said that primates are treated inhumanely and are put in small
living quarters (Goo 96). They are kept alone and isolated. This is not good for their
psychological well being (Wil 79). Actually, most of these claims are invalid due to the
laws and regulations that have been set to make sure animals are not being treated like
this. For every lab that does any type of animal testing, there has to be a veterinary
staff just to watch the animals and the scientists who work on them. Also, monkeys and
apes are required to get daily, complete medical examinations (Kin 93). Primates are a
lot like humans because they exhibit emotions and they suffer- like humans (Wil 79). Yet,
activists say that we are different and that animals react differently than humans to
testing (Fox 70). They can be considered the slaves of our generation and maybe in the
future, we may look back and say "How were we so cruel?" (Day 60). We are not being cruel
if we are doing almost the same thing to primates as the natives of Africa have been
doing for centuries. In Africa, primates run wild and are trapped and skinned. They are a
food source but are more of a pest than anything. In Africa, they are treated just as
bad, if not worst because they are used to the native's advantage to survive, just as we
would in the U.S. except on a bigger scale because more lives are at stake for the
sacrifice of the primates to strengthen our knowledge of medicine and medical technology
(77). 
According to many animal rights activists, animal experimentation is under- regulated.
They have made claims that laboratories in the U.S. use over 150 million animals in one
year, however according to polls put out by a federal program, an average of only 20
million animals are used each year in the United States (Wil 49). They also say that
there is very little protection for certain animals such as monkeys, cats, rabbits, and
dogs (Fox 58). The protections that animals do receive are adequate because of the Animal
Welfare Act of 1966 and the Animals Act of 1985. The Act of 1966 requires sanitation,
ventilation, and housing standards including feeding, watering and the handling of all
animals being used. The Act of 1985 requires that adequate painkillers be used. It also
requires extra exercise for dogs, and the living quarters and environment for all
primates need to promote their "psychological well-being." Another requirement is that
scientists have to consider every alternative of the testing method to make sure that
they have to use animals in the experiment (Day 29). In other words, it is required by
the federal government that all studies on animals be humane, be scientifically or
medically valuable, and be well designed (Kin 92). Many activists' main concerns are the
treatment of primates. They claim that primates are barely protected under any
regulations. If this is true, than the veterinarians who are hired by the government to
do daily checkups and complete medical examinations on primates are not doing their job.
If it is true that they are not doing their job, than they would have been exposed by the
committees hired to watch and write down every single step a person is doing in any part
of an experiment. The committees then take the information they have recorded and store
it in a public file for anybody concerned to review (93). Also, a researcher must answer
ten questions successfully to proceed in the tests. Besides the numerous veterinarians
who are hired to supervise the scientists who are doing the research on the animals,
there are also committees who watch them, thus, making a fail-safe system for animals'
rights (Wil 79). Also, many activists say that scientists kill the animal after an
experiment just because they have nothing more to use them for. They have the idea stuck
in their head that scientists are cold-blooded murderers who don't care at all for
animals. What the activists don't know is that to validate and conclude any experiment
where animals are used, they must obtain tissue samples from the animal. In order to do
this, the animal must be destroyed (Day 81). 
Many animal rights activists believe that there is an alternative to animal testing. It
is called "nonanimal testing" and is defined as performing an experiment with no animals
or as few animals as possible (Dol 36). Granted, some of these alternatives are
effective. For instance, an alternative to toxicology, testing to find the potency or
poison level of a certain chemical, is using cell cultures, bacteria, or fertilized
chicken or frog embryos (Wil 86). Certain microorganisms react a lot alike to how animals
would in the same tests. Another alternative is using tissue samples from humans or
animals. This is also effective on the toxicology testing method (Dol 39). However, no
alternatives are as effective as animals. Yes, there are cell and tissue cultures or
computer models, but to conclude any kind of testing, even in toxicology, one needs a
living system to know the physical and mental reaction that is portrayed out. Even if an
experiment is successful in non-animal testing, the results have to be validated on a
living system such as an animal. The reason a living system is necessary is because
scientists need to observe the reactions not to single cells but to organs and organ
systems which are much more complex than a tissue or cell culture. Even though there have
been some breakthroughs for non-animal testing, they are only useful in a few types of
researching (Wil 67). Animals are absolutely necessary to use for testing because of the
many critical steps that can only be taken if used in a complex living system (107).
Also, only ten percent of the animals used in testing are usually cats, dogs, or
primates. These animals are not chosen to be tested on because they are easy to obtain
all throughout America, but because they are essential for certain types of research. For
example, cats are important tools for research because they provide vital studies of
vision, hearing, and brain functioning that help scientists understand these systems in
humans. Dogs also are useful in the area of cardiovascular system research as well as
further understanding diseases in the heart and arteries in the human. Primates are also
one of the most important tools to scientists because their genetic makeup is very close
to a human's gene structure (Wil 67). 
Animal experimentation has many benefits to it and barely any down sides. When one is
found it can easily be disproven. Four good reasons to keep animal testing that I will
discuss is that animal experimentation benefits humans, animal experimentation is
entirely ethical and natural, animal experimentation is humane, and animal rights
activists tend to exaggerate and will stop or slow progress. 
Animal experimentation benefits humans in many ways. It is safe to say that almost every
modern medical therapy (fully or in part) has come about due to animal research (Day 86).
In fact, many people have been saved from catastrophic illnesses because we are
privileged to use animals for testing (Wil 49). In the past, many discoveries in
technologies and medical breakthroughs have saved millions of lives, and still do to this
day. A short list of what has been discovered by animal experimentation include organ
transplants, most surgical procedures, heart drugs, cancer drugs, insulin, antibiotics,
anesthetics, vaccines, and CAT Scans (Day 73). Other ailments that are now treatable and
curable are appendicitis, diabetes, scarlet fever, and diphtheria (Wil 77). Diseases like
smallpox and polio have been virtually wiped out because vaccines have been discovered
through research on animals (52). Due to animal research, the number of cases of polio
went from 52,000 in 1952 to four in 1984 in the U.S. alone (Wil 77). In fact, Nancy Day,
author of the book Animal Experimentation: Cruelty or Science? claims that "Without
animal research, millions of cancer patients around the world would be subjected to
unnecessary suffering and early death" (Day 82). Every day, numerous heart transplants
are given to small children and adults. The only reason man is able to perform these
vital operations is because dogs, who are the closest model to humans for this type of
procedure at this time, were used for experimentation. By using the canines for
experimentation, they have been able to perfect heart surgery in humans (Wil 65). 
Another benefit humans have had because of animal experimentation is the treatment of
familial hypercholestolemia. It was discovered that Watanabe rabbits have a genetic
disorder in which they have dangerously high cholesterol levels. A doctor found this
problem on the rabbits' feet, which had yellow "pockets" full of liquid. He soon found
out this disorder was similar to the ones in humans called familial hypercholestolemia.
If a child has this disease he/she will usually die of a heart attack before his/her
teens. Because he found this in these rabbits, he made many breakthroughs in this
disorder (Fox 14). Researchers have also carried out tests with drugs, alcohol, and
tobacco. They inject these substances into the animals to see their side effects, how
they are addicting, and many more evaluations to further understand how they affect
humans. 
One of the most important reasons we need animal experimentation is because animals are
used in training medical students. Medical students are virtually holding the lives of
future children in their hands and one can only imagine the setbacks, which would occur
if animal rights activists got their way and all animal research was stopped. All hope
for uncured diseases would be lost and there would also be no more medical advances. It
is needless to say it is dangerous to stop animal testing (19). 
Animal experimentation is entirely ethical and natural. In fact, there have been
forty-one Nobel Prizes awarded to scientists for their achievements that were wholly or
in part, due to the use of animals in their research (Dol 64). Today, there are fewer
animals used in labs than ever before. In 1978, the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences claimed that the number of animals used for research was
half of the amount from ten years before. Due to the raised price on pound animals, there
is also a shortage of pound animals that can be used because there is not enough funding.
Thus, the number of cats and dogs used is small and they are not used unethically nor
wastefully (Dol 79). Robert Phelan, a doctor, said, "We dispose of 200,000 pound animals
a week in this country- and their basically just killed and tossed. Bio-medical research
needs one week's worth of those for the entire year, and that's for training paramedics,
for training surgeons and nurses, and training medical students" (Phelen 32). Of the
twenty-five million dogs and cats born in the U.S. each year, half are impounded. These
animals are put to sleep after a couple of weeks if they are not claimed. This is why
animal experimentation is ethical and natural (Day 31).
Furthermore, experimentation is ethical because standards have been devised and are being
met. Animal laboratories have been regulated since 1966 by U.S. legislation. The Animal
Welfare Act of 1966 sets the minimum standards for housing, feeding, watering, and
handling lab animals. It also establishes basic levels of sanitation, ventilation, and
shelter. In addition, the Animals Act of 1985 requires researchers to consider alternate
methods to using animals (Day 29). Because of these acts that were passed, federal
committees have been hired to monitor scientists who experiment to make sure they follow
the act's requirements. However, some people felt that was not good enough to insure the
animal's welfare, so there are now committees, either federal or volunteer, that monitor
the committees that monitor the scientists to make sure these committees are doing their
jobs (Wil 79). 
Besides experimentation being ethically sound, it is a very natural act. Using animals
for research has been practiced for more than 2000 years and can be traced back to
Aristotle using animals for his first surgical practice (Dol 71). Animal Experimentation
is also mentioned in the Bible in the book of Genesis, 
Then God said, "Let us make man in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the
sea, and the birds of the air, over the livestock over the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground" (Moses 7).
Humans are the rulers over the animals and that passage states that it is the rights of
humans to use animals to their advantage. Many activists also claim that it is unnatural
for any animal to die from repetition of an experiment (Fox 19). What they don't
understand is that it is necessary to repeat certain tests to confirm the results of the
process so that this certain experiment will never have to be done again (Dol 78). 
Most research today is completely humane. Sixty-two percent of the animal subjects do not
feel pain and thirty-two percent of the subjects are on enough painkillers or anesthetics
to not feel pain. The other six percent do feel pain because either the procedure of the
experiment has to do with pain or no anesthetics or painkillers can be used because it
will obscure the results. Furthermore, animals that are being researched and tested on
are protected by the government to make sure there is no misuse (Day 79). In fact, the
main key to making sure animals are treated humanely is the inspection process. In the
Yerkes Research Center, for example, there is an expert surveillance team to make sure
animals are treated humanely. There are three full-time veterinarians, two vets, whose
specialty is in clinical pathology, another vet just for the subject of reproductive
biology, one registered nurse, three veterinarian technicians, and over thirty animal
care attendants. It is these people's jobs to make sure the researchers are following the
animal welfare laws and regulations. To top it all off, any lab that is federally funded
is also monitored. After an experiment is completed, a record of all the procedures,
steps, and the treatment of animals is put on file and given to the public for their own
surveillance. This is also required due to the Freedom of Information Act (Kin 93). 
In addition, in a primate research lab, it is practiced policy to keep all research an
ethical and scientific concern and all procedures are to be as a matter of routine (90).
Before doing any research on a primate, scientists must go through ten tedious questions
to make sure they can proceed with the experiment legally. This is required by the
government that the research on any animals to be well designed, medically or
scientifically valuable, and conducted humanely (92). Also, many animal rights activists
argue that it is inhumane for scientists to kill the animals after an experiment just to
make more room or use the animals at their disposal. However, the reason the animal is
killed after an experiment is not to dispose of them, but so tissue samples can be
obtained to validate the results and to make conclusions. If the animals were spared, the
test would be considered a waste because the last step would not be taken (Day 81). 
Animal rights activists are often considered to be animal rights "terrorists" to many
people. They have struck terror throughout the scientific community. They have been
forcing the research labs all over the country to put their much needed funding into
security systems to insure that nothing will happen to their labs or that animals will
not be stolen. Because of this, federal funding is getting smaller and the commitment to
the research of animals in university labs has dwindled (84). One of the main problems
for many labs is that they can't advance in their studies of, for example, heart disease
because the activists are keeping their hands tied with harassments and lawsuits (Wil
66). In 1990, it was estimated that a total of $10 million was lost in laboratories and
research due to animal rights activists (Fox 11).
Another problem with animal rights activists is that they are misinformed. Various animal
rights groups have claimed that the U.S. alone uses around 150 million animals for
research in a year. They also say a large percent of the animals are used needlessly.
However, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment estimated that only 17-20 million
animals are used per year. What they don't realize is that because of the competition
from other labs, the constant monitoring, and the activist groups, they can't afford to
waste money on animals for unnecessary research (Wil 78). Another attempt at stopping
animal experimentation by the activists is scaring pet owners into taking their side.
Activists claim that scientists steal pets and use them for experimenting. Because of
these uproars, a survey was taken in ten large cities concerning cases of pets stolen and
resold in labs. The survey found there were no incidents that occurred in these cities.
As you can see, this wasted the time and money of research laboratories. Instead of using
the money to further research, it was wasted on a survey that was done as a result of
propaganda by animal rights groups (67). Jered M. Loeb, a strong supporter of animal
experimentation claims, "Through bizarre tactics, extravagant claims, and gruesome myths,
animal rights groups have captured the attention of the media and a sizeable segment of
the public. Nevertheless, people invariably support the use of animals in research when
they understand both sides of the issues and the contributions of animals to [the] relief
of human suffering" (Loe 71). Unfortunately, activists are too arrogant to look at the
other sides of the issue, and they take their health for granted (Day 77). 
Animal experimentation must continue for the sake of mankind. It is absolutely necessary
for people to die naturally and not from a disease that could have been cured or treated
but was not because of the selfishness of trying to save a goldfish or two…hundred.
In order for mankind to advance, we must make the sacrifice of animals. The cost of
twenty animals' lives could save millions of people. With the animal control problem in
the pounds of America, there should not be any complaining from activists. If a dog is
going to be destroyed at a pound, why can't it be put to good use for a future
investment? It is said that by the year 2030, 90% of the deaths in this world will be
from non-communicable diseases. These are diseases like cancer and heart failure. I think
if all animal research were to come to a halt, it would only take half that time. It is
people like Elizabeth Darrow, a strong supporter and picketer for animal rights, who
could possibly stop or slow testing. People like her are kind-hearted but fail to see
both sides of an issue and are easily misinformed. With this misinformation, activists
will take it and twist it even more by exaggerating a lie. This is the way they win over
some of the public. Practically anyone will support experimentation if the benefits were
explained to him or her. If I ever had the chance to accost Darrow, I would ask her what
she would do if she were in Holly Anderson's place. If this didn't faze her, I would then
ask her what she would do if she were on a boat with her child and her dog and that boat
was sinking. If she could only save one of them, what choice would she make? If this
question wouldn't change her mind, even slightly, then I would know that her denial is
very strong. Furthermore, if she were to choose the dog over her child, I would
definitely question her sanity. 
Bibliography
ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION
Thesis: Animal experimentation is literally saving millions of lives everyday by the
progress that is made to treat and cure diseases and develop new surgical and technical
methods. If this much-needed process of experimenting were stopped it would devastate the
scientific community, the medical field, and the much-needed research on diseases such as
AIDS and cancer. Thus, animal experimentation must continue for the sake of mankind.
I. Cons
A. Animal experimentation is cruel and inhumane.
B. Animal experimentation is under-regulated.
C. There are alternatives to animal experimentation.
II. Pros
A. Animal experimentation benefit humans.
B. Animal experimentation is entirely ethical and natural.
C. Animal experimentation is humane.
D. Animal rights activists exaggerate and stop or slow progress.