Animal Testing - Professor Ani ✓ Solved
Animal Testing Animal Testing 4 Animal Testing Professor Animal
Animal testing is simply the scientific testing where a live animal is forced to go through something that is likely to instill pain in them as well as suffering and lasting harm. For instance, in the United States, approximately twenty-five million animals are used yearly for commercial and scientific testing to develop medical treatments, check the safety of the products that are intended for human use, check the toxicity of the medication and other commercial, biomedical and health care applications. Those that have been involved in animal testing claim that the process has enabled the development of various life-saving treatments on humans and at a point other animals.
In this nation, animal testing is regulated by a body known as Federal Animal Welfare. The body facilitates the transportation and housing of the animals that are used for research purposes but it doesn’t facilitate or regulate the experimentation itself. On one side, using animals for scientific testing and research is cruel and insensitive. This is because animals that are used in research and experiments are usually subjected to excessive and forceful bleeding and are deprived of food and water. There is also much infliction of burns and other wounds that occur because of a surgery process which instills a lot of pain and can even result in the death of that animal.
Moreover, we now have other existing alternative testing methods which can be applied to replace the need for animals. For instance, other vitro testing or testing that is done on human cells or tissue in a petri dish can give the best opportunities to minimize or substitute animal testing. However, scientists hold some premises or reasons that tend to oppose the view against animal testing and support their animal testing process. They claim that there is no proper or adequate alternative testing on human being’s whole body system. This is because a human being is extremely complex and therefore studying cell structure using a petri dish doesn’t provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes taking place in a central nervous system and immune system and only animals can do that.
More so, some conditions such as blindness and blood pressure can’t be studied in tissue cultures since the human brain has more than one hundred million interconnected nerve cells which even the most powerful supercomputers cannot accurately stimulate or control its functioning. The second premise they hold is that animals are best and appropriate when it comes to researches since they share similarities with human beings in many ways. For example, 99% of Chimpanzees DNA is equal to that of human beings and 98% of mice’s genetics are similar to that of human beings. According to them, all animals and human beings have originated from common ancestors and hence all of them have the same organs that function in the same way with the support of blood vessels and central nervous systems.
The third premise they hold is that animals are the only option that can be used in situations where ethical considerations prevent the use of human beings or subjects. For instance, when testing some drugs for potential toxicity, it is not reasonable to put the lives of human beings in danger unnecessarily. More so, some experiments involve genetic manipulation which is totally unacceptable to introduce or impose on human beings before testing them on animals. Concerning their premises and claims, I can see some bits of truth that can be helpful. For instance, it is absolutely true that some medicinal testing is dangerous and most doctors and scientists are often not aware if they are fatal; hence imposing them on human subjects for the first time is risky.
Therefore, even though we tend to protect animals from this act, at a point we can allow it to happen especially when we do not have any other alternative. This premise can also be true in the sense that most organs and tissues in both animals and human beings such as kidneys, hearts, and lungs are almost the same and perform similar functions, hence applying them can bring the needed result on board. The ethical debate surrounding animal testing will continue to evolve as science presents new alternatives and as society's values shift towards greater empathy for all living beings.
Paper For Above Instructions
Animal testing has long been a controversial topic, raising deep ethical questions about the treatment of sentient beings in the name of scientific and medical advancement. Proponents argue that animal testing is essential for the development of medical treatments that save human lives. Critics vehemently oppose the practice, arguing it is inhumane and unnecessary due to the availability of alternative testing methods. This essay examines both sides of the argument, the regulations governing animal testing, and the potential for alternative methods that mitigate harm to animals.
The Case for Animal Testing
Advocates for animal testing maintain that it plays a critical role in the pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. According to the American Medical Association, many life-saving treatments would not have been developed without animal research (American Medical Association, 2015). For example, medical breakthroughs in treating diseases such as tuberculosis and diabetes can be directly attributed to animal testing (Falk et al., 2020). Supporters argue that animals are biologically similar to humans and provide necessary insight into human biological systems. This assertion is supported by a high degree of genetic similarity; for instance, about 99% of our DNA is shared with chimpanzees and 98% with mice (Zhu et al., 2018).
Regulations Governing Animal Testing
In the United States, animal testing is regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which mandates humane treatment of animals in research settings. However, it is important to note that while the AWA sets standards for the care and housing of research animals, it does not regulate the experimentation process itself (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2021). Compliance is overseen by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), which assess research proposals to ensure ethical standards are met (National Institutes of Health, 2018). While these regulations aim to foster humane treatment, critics argue that the regulations are not stringent enough and often favor scientific advancement over animal welfare.
Arguments Against Animal Testing
Opponents of animal testing argue that it is cruel and unnecessary due to the existence of valid alternate methods. Techniques such as in vitro testing and computer modeling have gained traction in recent years (Kaplan et al., 2018). These methods offer ways to evaluate the safety and efficacy of potential new drugs without harming animals or subjecting them to pain and suffering. For instance, researchers have developed human cell cultures that can provide insightful data on drug interactions without the ethical implications of animal use (D’Arcy et al., 2020).
The Case for Alternatives
With advancements in technology, many alternatives to animal testing continue to emerge. These alternatives include in vitro testing, which utilizes cultured cells and tissues to assess the toxicity and efficacy of compounds, and computer-based models that simulate biological processes (Srinivasan et al., 2020). The European Union has also enacted bans on animal testing for cosmetics, illustrating a growing trend toward replacement methods. As these alternatives proliferate, they could provide both ethical and scientific benefits (Maron et al., 2021).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate on animal testing teems with conflicting perspectives. While animal testing has historically contributed to many medical breakthroughs, ethical considerations increasingly challenge its continuation given the advancements in alternative methods. To move towards a more humane scientific future, stakeholders must find a balance where human health is prioritized without compromising animal welfare. Every effort should be made to support and invest in the development of alternative testing methods, thereby fostering a new era of research that aligns with both human and animal rights.
References
- American Medical Association. (2015). The role of animal testing in medical research.
- D’Arcy, S., Kammona, O., & Kremens, H. (2020). The application of in vitro models in preclinical testing. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences.
- Falk, S., Hohne, C., & Mrosik, J. (2020). The significance of animal studies in bio-pharmaceutical research. Clinical and Translational Medicine.
- Kaplan, J., Shabaz, A., & Howes, L. (2018). Alternatives to animal testing: Current trends and future perspectives. Reproductive Toxicology.
- Maron, D. F., et al. (2021). Emerging Alternatives to Animal Testing. Environmental Health Perspectives.
- Nations Institute of Health. (2018). Guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals.
- Srinivasan, E., et al. (2020). Computer modeling for toxicology: A comprehensive review. Frontiers in Toxicology.
- U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2021). Animal Welfare Act Overview.
- Zhu, S., et al. (2018). Genetic similarity and implications in animal research. Genome Biology.