FREE ESSAY ON ANIMAL TESTING

ANIMAL TESTING

Animal Testing
For centuries, animals have been used in medical research. Since 1875, animal
experimentation has been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals are
ethical. At the very start, the movement against animal testing focused mainly on the
inhumanity of hurting and killing living beings for experimental discovery (Achor 95).
However, in these few decades, scientific invalidity was one of the focusing claims to
object to vivisection, which is an injurious use of animals in laboratories and
classrooms, whether for experimentation, product testing, training, or demonstration
(Achor 94-95). Animals are innocent and they are not able to fight back for any means of
suffering. Therefore, animal testing should be banned due to the fact that animal
experimentation does not benefit human health and it diverts attention away from reliable
research methods.
The abolition of vivisection is supported not only by animal activists but also by
scientists, medical doctors, psychiatrists, nurses, veterinarians, and other medical
professionals (Achor 95), who discredit the scientific merits of animal experimentation.
In contrast, some conservative physicians advocate the use of animal research because
they believe that accidental discoveries will lead us [them] to the advances (qtd. in
Achor 95) and they are reluctant to adopt alternative methodologies, such as tissue
cultures, which would require extensive re-training (Bender 75). They believe that
science cannot advance without animal experimentation. Other than some old-fashioned
physicians, animal breeders, animal dealers, and animal food suppliers also oppose the
termination of animal research because they will lose millions of dollars, which is
supposed to be their profits. 
Animal research cannot guarantee the effects of drugs on human beings. Every living
system differs from each other. Predicting the reaction of one species by studying
another species is not accurate at all. LaFoullette and Shanks depicted the truth that
even the most common drug given to humans does not have uniform effects in non-human
animals (26). Although mice and rats look very similar, their reaction upon certain drugs
can be totally distinctive (Achor 104).
Roy Kupsinel, M.D. once announced that animal experimentation produces [produced] a lot
of misleading and confusing data which poses [posed] hazards to human health. For
example, 4 million patients per year are hospitalized for side effects caused by
??thoroughly tested' drugs, and of those 50,000 die of the ??cures,' not the disease
(Achor 104). According to Davis, aspirin causes birth defects in rats and mice, poisons
cats, but does not affect horses (qtd. in LaFoullette and Shanks 26). A well-known
example of the misleading animal testing which harms human health is the thalidomide
disaster. The box accompanying the thalidomide stated that after substantial animal
tests, this drug was confirmed to be safe. However, birth defects were eventually caused
if pregnant women had prescribed. This resulted in missing limbs in thousands of babies
(Achor 104). In addition, there are many factors affecting the results obtained by animal
experimentation, such as stress, age, diet, gender, isolation, and crowding (Dickinson
32). Thus, cases can be false positive or false negative. Some drugs are toxic for humans
but healthy for animals; some are useful for human health but not in terms of animals
(LaFoullette and Shanks 26). As a result, animal experimentation does not totally benefit
for human health. Instead, they may harm human beings. 
Focus on animal research eliminates choices on other reliable research methods. With the
recent objection of animal testing, more scientists started to pursue other research
methods. As we expected, the non-animal researches are superior to animal research (Achor
102). One significant example is the Ames test, which examines if materials are to be
carcinogens or not. This test is performed by introducing a suspected carcinogen to
salmonella bacteria. If the substance causes genetic changes in salmonella bacteria, then
the substance is very likely carcinogenic (Achor 102). This test takes a few days to
complete. 
Mobil Oil Company adopted the Ames test to examine petroleum-based products, and this
only took them 48 hours and cost $600. Comparing with animal tests that they previously
used, Mobil Oil Company has saved up to $50,000, two and a half years of time, and 30,000
animals which are supposed to be using in animal testing (Achor 102). Instead of animal
experimentation, some other successful alternatives without killing animals include
In-vitro studies, Mathematical models which predict novel results, and Physio-chemical
studies which analyze the properties of drugs (Achor 102). As a result, scientists should
adopt other reliable research methods rather than animal experimentation.
Although a number of medical doctors and scientists do not support the use of animals in
laboratories, animal experimentations are still taking place. Animal research does not
benefit human health in some ways, but they contribute an important role in medical
science. For example, the polio vaccine, kidney transplants, and heart surgery techniques
have all been developed with the aid of animal research (Bender 60). In spite of the fact
that in a recent count, 60 to 75 percent of animal experimentations are duplicating the
previous studies, such as the effect of pain in combination with cocaine and other drugs,
and the drug dependence and noxious stimuli (qtd. in Achor 102). In other words, animal
research does not provide as much fresh information as before. Therefore, scientists
should spend more time on other research methods rather than sticking with this old
method ?V animal testing. As a result, the medical science field can obtain a new face
and perhaps, may flourish in a larger extent. 
Day by day, animals are suffering in laboratories by electric shock and ravages of
syphilis. Nevertheless, they can do nothing to escape from mistreatment in laboratories
because they are not able to fight back. Therefore, being humane, we should help them get
rid of the useless suffering because the animal tests they are involved in are not
beneficial to human health and are driving away attention to other research methods.