History and Debate of Animal Rights
Animals are used for research in a variety of settings, including tests to determine the safety of drugs, cosmetics and other substances. Whether or not humans should use animals for testing purposes, however, is a controversial subject. There are both pros and cons to using animals for testing, but the scientific community, the government and society in general have yet to reach a consensus on this ethical issue.
One of the primary advantages of animal testing is that it allows researchers to develop new medications and treatments, advancing the field of medicine and enhancing the health of society. For instance, many drugs used to treat or prevent cancer, HIV, diabetes, infections and other medical maladies have resulted from tests performed on animals. Many proponents of animal testing support the practice for this reason, even if they do not support testing cosmetics or other non-essential substances on animals.
Animal testing also enables scientists and researchers to test the safety of medications and other substances with which humans have regular contact. Drugs, for instance, may pose significant risks to humans, so testing them on animals first gives researchers a chance to determine drugs' safety before human trials are performed. While scientists are cognizant of the differences between humans and animals, the similarities are considered significant enough to produce relevant, useful data that they can then apply to humans. Thus, animal testing reduces harm to humans and saves lives, not only because the exposure to risky substances is minimized, but because resulting medications and treatments have such positive impacts on the overall quality of life experienced by humans.
Critiques of Animal Testing
One of the major disadvantages to animal testing is that a significant number of animals are harmed or die as a result of experiments and testing. Unfortunately, many of the substances used on animal subjects never receive approval for human use or consumption. Those who oppose animal testing consider this a very important point, because humans receive no direct benefits as a result of the deaths of these animals. Opponents also argue that animals are dissimilar enough from humans to make the results of animal tests unreliable. A related criticism is that testing induces stress in the animals, meaning that the subjects do not react to experimental substances in the same way that they might in more natural circumstances, making the results of experiments less valid.
Using animals as research subjects is also expensive, because the animals require food, shelter, care and treatment in addition to the costs of experimental substances. Long-term or multi-phase tests can increase the costs of the practice as well. The actual price paid for the animals is also worth consideration; there are companies that breed and sell animals specifically for testing purposes.
Taken from HERE.
It is very unfortunate that scientist uses animal as testing for their discoveries. I personally think that there should be limitations set by the government for scientists to follow on the maximum amount of animals used for every discovery. Not only that, animals that are used should be animals that are far from extinction. I felt pity for animals that are used for animal testing. They cannot express their disagreement on them being the animal for testing, imagine how you would feel if you are in the position of the animal. On the other hand, the scientists have no other option rather than using animals to test their discovery as these animals are the closest species to human beings. We cannot blame these scientists as they have no other options. In the future, there should be changes made so that animals won’t face extinction, as technology evolve, there should be no need of sacrificing animal for a study, we could take advantage of technology.
ReplyDeleteResearch conducted on living animals or also called as animal experiments has been practiced since at least 500 BC. Animals are used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medications, check the safety of products destined for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and health care uses. Today, debates of whether experiments on animals should be allowed or abolished continues. The proponents of animal testing claims that it has enabled the development of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals, that there is no alternative method for researching a complete living organism, and that strict regulations prevent the mistreatment of animals in laboratories. Some opponents of animal testing argues that animal testing is cruel and inhumane and can be classified as animal cruelty because although the claims that these animals will not be mistreated, tests including forcing mice and rats to inhale toxic fumes, force-feeding dogs pesticides, and dripping corrosive chemicals into rabbits’ sensitive eyes still inflicts pain, suffering, distress or even lasting harm. The complete lack of environmental enrichment and the stress of their living situation cause some animals to develop neurotic types of behavior such as incessantly spinning in circles, rocking back and forth, pulling out their own fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring all of these, almost all of them will be killed. Furthermore, even if a product harms animals, it can still be marketed to consumers. Conversely, just because a product was shown to be safe in animals does not guarantee that it will be safe to use in humans. Alhtough there has been suggestions on the alternative medium for these experiments such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, it’s still inadequate as it is very different from testing on a living, whole-body system and does not provide the opportunity to study interrelated processes occurring in the central nervous system, endocrine system, and immune system.
ReplyDeleteRecently, scientists has been made to follow the set of guidelines provided by the government in order to reduce the impact of research on animals through “three R’s”, which are reduction, refinement and replacement. Reduction means reducing the number of animals used in experiments by improving experimental techniques and data analysis as well as publicising the results for other scientists. Refinement means refining the experiment or the way the animals are cared for so as to reduce their suffering by using less invasive techniques, better medical care and also living conditions. Replacement means trying to replace experiments on animals with alternative techniques such as experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals, using computer models, studying human volunteers and using epidemiological studies.
Yes, animals do have emotions. If you think that only humans that have emotions, then you’re absolutely wrong. They are also living creatures and that is why they have emotions too. (I actually kind of triggered by the article because #humanesociety)
ReplyDeleteI read this article about a baby elephant that is rejected by his own mother and he cried for a long time and the zookeeper need to separate him with his own mother. I saw the same thing with my grandma’s dog. When my grandma passed away he started to act different, he’s not that cheerful anymore. He didn’t want to eat, he moans every time, and I can see his teary eyes. I know that he miss my grandma’s presence, and her death affects him very much. It took a great effort just to make him happy again! That’s why I do believe that animals have emotions. Sometimes you can’t see directly their emotions and you need more work to see, feel, or know their emotions. But hey, they do have emotions.
I agree with the second paragraph on how animal testing is probably best justified when it comes to developing new medications against diseases and illnesses detrimental to mankind. The reason as to why I choose to support the content of the second paragraph is because any sacrifice would never be in vain if it was presented on the correct altar, which obviously etched with something sounding like the “Humanity’s Long Lasting Health”. Therefore, that statement alone is enough to exclude any other variations of animal testing whose aim is to test beauty products or any other drugs that are meant to feed the desires of humans to be more than what they had been born with; being more beautiful than other people, being slimmer than the rest, and many more. The reason being is that when scientists go their way in testing beauty products on animals, the initial aim of the testing has always been to receive the confirmation that whatever composition of elements that they had stirred into their beauty product is not harmful. From there, we can infer that the scientists may not have had considered the side effects of the used elements knowing that such considerations will come later when the animal testing is being conducted. As compared to animal testing meant to discover new medicines, the elements that the scientists had blended into their drugs are already considered by them in terms of the possible side effects that such elements may bring to the people who use them before the animal testing haven’t even been conducted.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is, you owe thanks to the animals who have sacrificed their lives for your health that you’re probably taking for granted if this topic were never brought for you to read and comment on.
The use of animal for scientific purposes has long been the subject of a heated debate. During World War Two, a lot of controversial human experiment were conducted for war purposes. The experiment were highly inhumane and unethical for it causes a lot of casualties. Ever since then, animal research becomes more encouraged.
ReplyDeleteAnimal testing is necessary to studies that cannot involve the human. For instance, a lot of psychologist and neurologist still use rats to study the brain. Some experiments may involve injecting substances such as hormones or neurotransmitters and it would therefore be unethical if done to human. Animals like rats are chosen because its physiological properties are to certain extent similar to human. The result from animal experiment to certain extent can be generalized to human and it is mostly beneficial to develop new drugs or treatments. Psychologist Rosenzweig & Bennet (1972) carried out an important study involving rats which gave a lot of insight on neuroplasticity. I personally think that animal testing should be allowed, to certain extent. As long as the animal rights and regulation is fulfilled, I think animal experiment or testing would still be necessary for scientific purposes.
The campaign of cruelty-free products is delivered by a lot of consumer goods companies, such as The Body Shop, NYX, Lush, and etc. This is being done in order to fulfil the demand of the anti-animal-testing activists that condemns those companies proven to use an animal as its experimental object. Even if it takes the scientist to do further research for the replacement of animal, this is a good way out. It will be a good move if the experiment could be held without hurting anyone or anything, won’t it? Several methods have been found to replace animal. Scientists started growing human and animal cells, culturing them into miniature 3D structures of human organs. Human tissues can also be used, which is usually donated from surgery. The advancement of technology enables scientist to remodel or replicate the human aspects using computers. Not only a utopian future, but the computer models already exist for heart, lungs, and a lot more.
ReplyDeleteSo many animals that go through the torturous process of animal testing products experience stress, physical and mental trauma, disabilities, given harmful substances without providing any pain reliefs, and possibly death. While I do understand it is conducted for the ‘better good’ of humanity and the future of medicine, I still believe that animal testing is wrong. There are plenty of companies that are animal testing free and have discovered plenty of alternative methods to test out their products. An example of this is conducting tests through cells or human tissues, which may provide better results. This is because the anatomy and system of animals aren’t as intricate and complex the way humans are. Therefore, the medicine that is safe for rabbits may not be safe for humans to use. I firmly believe that animal testing should also be considered as animal abuse and banned, or at the very least, must implement standards and restrictions to the act of animal testing.
ReplyDeleteI am against Animal Testing when it comes to cosmetic products. With the advance in technologies nowadays, cosmetic products can be taste in another ways. Some alternatives are for example: using test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures, checking computerized patient-drug databases, searching with computer models and simulations. Therefore, there is no need to harm small animals like rabbits or mouses, when there are other options available.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when we talk about specific medications that have to be tested before trying with humans, I agree that is better to test them with animals. BUT as the last research method and testing. There are always some limits that people should take into considerations, and it is not about testing the medicaments with animals in every step and killing hundred of them. Is about developing the best medication possible with the technology available and as a last step prove their success with animals. Medications should never be tested in human beings, because the life of every person has no price.
Many researchers use animal such as rats to test their hypothesis or experiment to prevent harm to anyone when there are consequences. Personally, I disapprove to the idea of animal testing, since it involves a living thing, and this research may cause deaths to the animals. In addition, the system in an animal’s body may not be 100% similar to the system in human’s body. Therefore, the success in animal’s organs does not guarantee that it will be also a success in human’s organs. In other words, this animal testing would be unreliable and less valid. Even though there are a variety of advantages of animal testing such as for advancement or improvement in medication, for me personally, we should not do it by harming animals. In my opinion, researchers should not use an animal as their subject to test their hypothesis or experiments; they should use other alternatives to prove their demonstration.
ReplyDelete