PROS Allow researchers to study a test subject for a whole life span
Humans can live up to 80 years or more, which means some scientists would be dead before others results will be gathered. Laboratory mice, on the other hand, only live for 2 to 3 years, giving researchers an opportunity to study effects of genetic manipulation or treatments over an entire lifetime. In some cases, they can continue to study across several generations. his is why mice and rats have been used for long!term cancer research.
CONS Cruel and inhumane treatment
"rotocols in animal testing are often painful to the test sub#ects. hey are forced fed, deprived of food and water, restrained physically for prolonged periods, inflicted with burns, wounds and pain to test for healing process effects and remedies, and even $illed through nec$!brea$ing or asphy%iation. his is according to the Humane &ociety International. 'hen testing to evaluate irritation caused by cosmetics, for e%ample, a rabbit(s eyes will be held open by clips so it cannot blin$ away the products being evaluated. he clips usually stay on for days, and to ensure the rabbits stay in place, they are incapacitated. &ome e%perimentation also involves using lethal doses of certain chemicals to determine how much can $ill animals. Animals make poor test subjects
Humans and animals are almost identical in many ways
he )*+ of chimpanees are -- similar with humans, while the genetics of mice are -8 similar. Humans and animals are also biologically similar, similar, having the same set of organs, bloodstream and central nervous system, which is why they are affected with the same diseases and health conditions. /iven these circumstances, animals used in e%perimentation do serve as appropriate research sub#ects.
his statement is a direct contradiction from what proponents believe about how closely related animals and humans are anatomically and biologically, because of the many metabolic, cellular,, and anatomical differences between the two species. cellular sing rats for to%icity, for e%ample, must not be accepted as reliable since humans are nowhere close to being 10!$ilogram rats, according to homas Hartung, professor of evidence!based to%icology at ohns Hop$ins niversity. niversity. his is further supported by the 203 study in the +rchives of o%icology o%icology that states that the lac$ of direct comparison of human data versus that of a mouse ma$es the usefulness of research data dubious.
Provides adeuate livin!" whole body system test subject
*o other living thing in this planet has the closest anatomical structure as humans than animals. + human body is e%tremely comple% that cell cultures in a petri dish cannot provide sufficient test results or proof that a cure or product is effective. esting esting a drug for side effects, for e%ample, re4uires a circulatory system that will carry the drug to different organs. &tudying interrelated processes is also best done in sub#ects with endocrine system, immune system, and central nervous system, something humans and animals have. 'hat ' hat about the use of computer models5 hey would re4uire accurate information that is gathered from animal research.
Success in animal e#perimentation does not euate to human safety
'hen the sleeping pill thalidomide was tested on pregnant rats, mice, cats and guinea pigs, there were no incidence of birth defects, e%cept when administered at e%tremely high doses. However, when when it was used by pregnant women, it resulted in severe deformities affecting 0,000 babies. •
•
•
•
he arthritis drug 6io%%, which turned out great on animals was really bad news on humans because it caused more than 20,000 heart attac$s and sudden cardiac deaths. + ma#ority ma#ority of the drugs that passed animal animal tests, -7 to to be e%act, failed in human clinical trials. 00 of the drugs designed to treat stro$e wor$ed on animals, but completely failed in humans ver 89 vaccines for HI6 wor$ed well in primates, but failed in humans
Can lead to misleadin! research
&ome medicines and products that are harmful to animals are actually valuable to humans. +spirin, for e%ample, was almost shelved because it proved dangerous for animals. Imagine what would have happened if aspirin was completely ta$en off the pharmaceutical list5 here would have been no way to lower the ris$ of organ transplant being re#ected.
Animals are protected from abuse and mistreatment
:ontrary to what most opponents believe, animal research is highly regulated, with laws enacted to protect animals. &ince -;;, the federal +nimal 'elfare +ct have been regulating animal e%perimentation. I+::? that will approve all proposals to use animals for e%perimentation. he I+:: will be responsible for enforcing humane treatment of animals. "H&? must comply with the policies on Human :are and se of Laboratory +nimals imposed by "H&.
$ost animals used in testin! and research are not protect by the Animal %elfare Act &A%A'
+s of 200, only over million animals are covered by the +' leaving around 29 million more unprotected from mistreatment and abuse. hese include birds, fish, mice and rats. +nd because vivisections within laboratory walls are regulated by th committee that the facility itself selected, animal sub#ects are even more at ris$ of being treated li$e prisoners in a hospital fo their entire e%istence. ne very good e%ample of a clear violation of +'+ was discovered in a federally funded facility in Louisiana, *ew Iberi *I<:?. he animals were so stressed out psychologically that they resorted to self!mutilation. he rest of the 331 violations that *I<: committed were caught on a vide footage, showing the heartbrea$ing conditions of the animals. @ut this facility is #ust one of the many that violates +'+.
Offer benefits to animals themselves
+nimal e%perimentation is not only beneficial to humans but animals as well. If the vaccines were not tested on them, a lot of them could have died from rabies, infectious hepatitis virus, anthra%, feline leu$emia, and canine parvovirus.
Provides an ethical alternative for testin!
Aost people would say that it is unethical to use humans for invasive e%perimental procedures, especially when it can result in death. he lives of human volunteers must not be endangered when testing medicines for side effects or potential to%icity. =thical consideration must also be made when genetic manipulation would be involved. Human trials must be preceded by animal testing, as stated by the 'orld Aedical +ssociation )eclaration of Helsin$i. @ut, if animals could tal$, they would probably demand the same ethical considerations.
(here are less e#pensive alternatives to animal e#perimentation
)espite what proponents insist, cell cultures in a petri dish, or i vitro >in glass? testing, are not e%actly useless or insufficient. hey can even produce results that are more relevant than animal e%perimentation. he same thing is true when using artificial human s$in as a test sub#ect, instead of animal s$in. 6irtual reconstructions of human molecular structures done through computer models also have the capacity to predict to%icity levels of substances, so no need to poison animals to collect data and draw conclusions. +nd, when testing for adverse reactions, administering small doses on humans, also $nown as microdosing, also offers an alternative. :ombined wi blood analysis, results will be produced. @ut what is really important is that these alternatives are less e%pensive than animal e%perimentations. In glass testing, for e%ample, only costs B,000, which is less than B2,000 than Cunscheduled )*+ synthesisD. + phototo%icity test that doesn(t use rats only cost B,300, which is almost B0,000 less than it animal!based e4uivalent. hese only shows that animal tests
are wasting plenty of government dollars allocated for research
Plenty of animal lives are wasted )ewer animals are used in research than as food for humans
:ompared to the amount of chic$en, cattle, sheep and pigs that humans eat, relatively few of them are used in e%perimentation. 'ith consideration to the medical progress and advancement such tests provided, it is a small price to pay. o illustrate, for every chic$en used in research, an e4uivalent of 370 are used as food.
Contributes to many cures and treatments that save many human lives
:onsidering all the tests that failed, not to mention other non! e%perimental factors that affect animals, there is a significant number of animal lives wasted for nothing. hey suffer or get $illed during the e%periment, and suffer the same fate after the e%periment. @ut what is really inhumane and unethical are the poor research procedures used by some facilities. &erious flaws were discovered in plenty of studies in the E and the .&. that use rodents, according to a peer!reviewed study conducted in 200-. &election bias was a ma#or problem, but even with randomiation and blinding techni4ue used, proper selection of animals still failed. here is also a lac$ of hypothesis or ob#ective related to the study.
$edical breakthrou!hs need not involve animals
he ma#ority of the medical brea$throughs that have happened Is animal e%perimentation really that necessary in discovering in the last 00 years were direct results from animal research treatments and cures5 pponents argue that there is really no and e%perimentation, according to the :alifornia @iomedical evidence of its vital role in ma#or medical advances. If funds and
