Animal Testing Research Paper
Over the years, new products have been substantiated. These products consist of medicines, cosmetics, and the like. Humans benefit from these products but how were these products succumbed and at what cost? Animals are being tortured for information for the benefit of mankind. They are being kept away not only from nature but also from their families to be tormented. Animal rights groups have surfaced throughout the years, protecting the lives of innocent animals from experiments.
Below are some facts about how experimentation on animals is torturous:
“1.
Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in
US labs every year.
2.
92% of experimental …show more content…
drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in
human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don’t work.
3.
In tests of potential carcinogens, subjects are given a substance every day
for 2 years. Others tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses.
4.
The reallife applications for some of the tested substances are as trivial
as an “improved” laundry detergent, new eye shadow, or copycat drugs to replace a profitable pharmaceutical whose patent expired (Ethicsanimal ethics, n.d.).”
“Animal replacement is defined as, ‘any scientific method employing nonsentient material which may replace use of conscious living vertebrates in animal experimentation’” (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). Animal testing has long been used for research on new products, but there are other means of establishing results other than testing products on animals. Scientists have come up with different alternatives for animal testing. Some of these alternatives, which are used in place of costly, inhumane
experimentation on animals, are in vitro testing, in silico, and microdosing (Do alternatives exist, n.d.). Scientists were able to alter animal experimentation to make it more humane. This process was later referred to as the three R’s, which stand for reduction, refinement, and replacement (Doke & Dhawale, 2013).
Scientists used this means because of the torment done during animal experimentation, but quality had to be guaranteed. Reduction, which is the first step, is the process of lessening the number of animals to be used for animal experimentation.
This is where scientists study the effects of the different body parts and organs in place of animal testing, thereby tests on animals are being substituted with tests on human cells and tissues. The next stage is refinement. Doke and Dhawale (2013) acclaims that this is where scientists find the best way to diminish the pain, discomfort, and distress emanated by animals; it is also where improvement of habitation of research animals and improvement on the research are done (Hendriksen, 2009). Lastly, replacement is the final step in leading animal experimentation to be more humane. It is recommended that whenever possible, alternatives are to be used in place of animal testing (Doke &
Dhawale, 2013). Using alternatives to animal testing is the best way of reducing the amount of laboratory animals kept in cages for research since it is using different means other than animals.
One alternative to the animal experimentation is in vitro testing. This is where a small amount of an animal’s body part (i.e. skin) will be tested in a test tube. Using special laboratory equipment, scientists are able to attain the same result without animal experimentation. With this test, experimentation on animals is being replaced with
tissues and cells to predict any sort of reaction from humans to new medicines, cosmetics, and others (Feder, 2007). New technology has been developed especially for this test. These newlydeveloped equipment have the properties to mimic the human anatomy to be able to predict the results (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
n.d.).
Although this test may be a great alternative, the process of conducting this experimentation is too complex to be used globally; but there are other means of animal testing alternative.
One of the disadvantages of using in vitro is that it does not decrease in the number of animals killed. Although in vitro uses only a small amount of an animal’s body part, it does not necessarily mean that theses animals are not killed. Important organs may be needed for testing, and to retrieve it, scientists would have to kill the animal.
However, the advantages overpower the disadvantage in the sense that there are more benefits to it than harm. The costs of animal testing, depending on the system, is more expensive than in vitro. For example, in testing products for nongenetic cancer risk, animal testing costs $700,000, while in vitro testing costs $22,000 (Humane Society
International, n.d.). One of the human tissues are often more reliable, in the sense that it is more accurate in predicting the reaction of humans, than animal tissues, make …show more content…
the cost. This is because there are only similarities when using animal cells, meaning that although some animals and humans may be alike in body functions and organs, it does not necessarily mean that humans will react the same way as animals do (New England
AntiVivisection Society, n.d.). The results of these tests also take a shorter amount of time as compared to animal testing.
Another alternative to animal testing is in silico testing. In silico is a test ran using a computer or simply, a computer simulation. In other terms this means, “Integration of modern computing and information technology with molecular biology to improve agency prioritization of data requirements and risk assessment of chemicals” (The
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). The word in silico was first introduced to the people by a mathematician named Pedro Miramontes in his report dubbed as “DNA and RNA Physicochemical Constraints, Cellular Automata and
Molecular Evolution; wherein he defined it as a way to perform experiments using a computer (Autoimmunity Research Foundation, n.d.). In silico testing was discovered because of the incorporation of technology in the performance of experiments in today’s modern world. It is the newest possible way of gaining knowledge among other methods. It is often used in toxicology wherein it determines the reaction of the human body to a drug that is being introduced whether it will be considered as a toxin or
not
(Raunio, 2011). It is considered as another effective alternative because it targets the specific processes that are needed in the experimentation so that no additional trials will be made (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). Amidst its popularity in the scientific community because of its advantages, some people are still doubtful in the efficiency and reliability when it comes to the results that it yields.
People question in silico testing mainly because it is mostly ran by the
computer systems and not the human itself. In silico testing is a complex kind of experiment because much preparation is needed; one has to devote time in installing the computer codes and maintenance of the system in order for the
experiment to yield a minimal and acceptable percentage error (What is ‘in silico’ experimentation?, n.d.). The introduction of such experiment also needs additional knowledge for the scientists for them to configure and properly operate these computer systems; with such complexity present in this kind of experiment, scientists who have backgrounds in operating computer systems are the only ones capable in conducting in silico experiments (What is ‘in silico’ experimentation?, n.d.).
Despite all these disadvantages, there are still advantages to in silico testing.
According to Arora et al. (2011), this mode of experimentation reduces the animals that are being used in animal testing making it a more humane method. In a software called
Computer Aided Drug Design, it evaluates whether a drug will interact to a specific binding site and prohibits from undergoing in vivo confirmatory test on drugs that exhibit no biological activity (Doke and Dhawale, 2013). It makes the setup more reliable in the sense that it is more consistent since variables can be controlled unlike in in vivo testing wherein the health status of an animal shall be taken into consideration because it can affect the outcome of the experiment. In silico testing can also make the translation of the collected data safer and more efficient. Experiments that undergo in silico testing can produce results faster as compared to other means which could take a lot of months or even years just for the results to be available (Arora et al., 2011).
Eventually, in silico testing is a feasible alternative to animal testing because it considers the animals being used in the experiment, it controls all the variables present in the experiment, eradicating the presence of dependent variables and collects experimental results in a faster and systematic process.
Lastly, another alternative to animal testing that will be discussed is microdosing.
According to GreenFacts (n.d.), “microdosing is a technique where people are given extremely low quantities of substances being tested in order to study how the substance behaves in the body. The doses are so low that they are unlikely to produce wholebody effects, but are high enough to allow the cellular response to be studied.” Microdosing is usually dubbed as Phase 0 in establishing a pharmacokinetic data in humans (Rani &
Naidu, 2008). Microdosing was a solution to a longtime problem in the search for new and viable drugs for humans. Because of the inefficiency and expensiveness of in vivo testing or direct experimentation on animals, microdosing was introduced (Rani &
Naidu, 2008).
Even though microdosing provides a clear path in lessening the inefficiency of drugs being produced and the animals being used in experiments, there are still limitations to this technique. As stated by Lappin and Garner (2008), microdosing cannot predict whether there will be side effects present or if the said drug being tested will be toxic to the human body or not. This is why microdosing is not being used on a frequent basis because it only targets a specific area for inquiry; the data that will be present today will be obsolete in the future considering that there are only a few people who undergo experiment or testing (Lappin & Garner, 2008). Laboratory apparatus that are used in microdosing experiments such as the accelerator mass spectrometry and positron emission tomography are bulky and expensive (Human microdosing proves its value in drug and RD, 2005).
Regardless of these negativities, microdosing still is a viable alternative to animal testing because it will reduce the use of animals that are subject for experimentation, decrease the cost of the experiments and obtain a faster conclusion. Laboratory apparatus for microdosing experiments such as the accelerator mass spectrometry may be bulky and expensive but the price is worth enough because it has the sensitivity in tracking and detecting low levels of the drug in the human body (Arnaud, 2013). Rani and Naudio (2008) remarks that animals will not extensively be used in performing microdosing experiments but will only be used for confirmatory tests in accordance to the regulatory requirement. As stated by Professor Colin Garner (Human microdosing proves its worth to drug and RD, 2005), “preclinical studies can take up to 18 months at a cost of $3 million to $5 million. microdosing techniques could reduce the time to four to six months and the cost to $0.35 million per new molecule.”
Eventually, microdosing can be an alternative to animal testing because the use of animals and the cost of experiments are reduced, more efficient in datagathering and obtains a faster result in the experiment that was performed. While for in vitro, costs may be more, depending on the scale, but it proves to be more accurate as far as how humans react towards products.
To sum up, animal cruelty undergoes if people continue to allow animals to be experimented on. Animals have their rights to their own lives just as humans do. If people were to be experimented on, other people would not just sit by and allow it to happen; instead, they would object and fight for their release. There are other means in
obtaining the information scientists’ need, so there is no need to put innocent lives on stake. Alternatives can and should be used in place of animal experimentation.
Below are some facts about how experimentation on animals is torturous:
“1.
Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in
US labs every year.
2.
92% of experimental …show more content…
drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in
human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don’t work.
3.
In tests of potential carcinogens, subjects are given a substance every day
for 2 years. Others tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses.
4.
The reallife applications for some of the tested substances are as trivial
as an “improved” laundry detergent, new eye shadow, or copycat drugs to replace a profitable pharmaceutical whose patent expired (Ethicsanimal ethics, n.d.).”
“Animal replacement is defined as, ‘any scientific method employing nonsentient material which may replace use of conscious living vertebrates in animal experimentation’” (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). Animal testing has long been used for research on new products, but there are other means of establishing results other than testing products on animals. Scientists have come up with different alternatives for animal testing. Some of these alternatives, which are used in place of costly, inhumane
experimentation on animals, are in vitro testing, in silico, and microdosing (Do alternatives exist, n.d.). Scientists were able to alter animal experimentation to make it more humane. This process was later referred to as the three R’s, which stand for reduction, refinement, and replacement (Doke & Dhawale, 2013).
Scientists used this means because of the torment done during animal experimentation, but quality had to be guaranteed. Reduction, which is the first step, is the process of lessening the number of animals to be used for animal experimentation.
This is where scientists study the effects of the different body parts and organs in place of animal testing, thereby tests on animals are being substituted with tests on human cells and tissues. The next stage is refinement. Doke and Dhawale (2013) acclaims that this is where scientists find the best way to diminish the pain, discomfort, and distress emanated by animals; it is also where improvement of habitation of research animals and improvement on the research are done (Hendriksen, 2009). Lastly, replacement is the final step in leading animal experimentation to be more humane. It is recommended that whenever possible, alternatives are to be used in place of animal testing (Doke &
Dhawale, 2013). Using alternatives to animal testing is the best way of reducing the amount of laboratory animals kept in cages for research since it is using different means other than animals.
One alternative to the animal experimentation is in vitro testing. This is where a small amount of an animal’s body part (i.e. skin) will be tested in a test tube. Using special laboratory equipment, scientists are able to attain the same result without animal experimentation. With this test, experimentation on animals is being replaced with
tissues and cells to predict any sort of reaction from humans to new medicines, cosmetics, and others (Feder, 2007). New technology has been developed especially for this test. These newlydeveloped equipment have the properties to mimic the human anatomy to be able to predict the results (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,
n.d.).
Although this test may be a great alternative, the process of conducting this experimentation is too complex to be used globally; but there are other means of animal testing alternative.
One of the disadvantages of using in vitro is that it does not decrease in the number of animals killed. Although in vitro uses only a small amount of an animal’s body part, it does not necessarily mean that theses animals are not killed. Important organs may be needed for testing, and to retrieve it, scientists would have to kill the animal.
However, the advantages overpower the disadvantage in the sense that there are more benefits to it than harm. The costs of animal testing, depending on the system, is more expensive than in vitro. For example, in testing products for nongenetic cancer risk, animal testing costs $700,000, while in vitro testing costs $22,000 (Humane Society
International, n.d.). One of the human tissues are often more reliable, in the sense that it is more accurate in predicting the reaction of humans, than animal tissues, make …show more content…
the cost. This is because there are only similarities when using animal cells, meaning that although some animals and humans may be alike in body functions and organs, it does not necessarily mean that humans will react the same way as animals do (New England
AntiVivisection Society, n.d.). The results of these tests also take a shorter amount of time as compared to animal testing.
Another alternative to animal testing is in silico testing. In silico is a test ran using a computer or simply, a computer simulation. In other terms this means, “Integration of modern computing and information technology with molecular biology to improve agency prioritization of data requirements and risk assessment of chemicals” (The
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). The word in silico was first introduced to the people by a mathematician named Pedro Miramontes in his report dubbed as “DNA and RNA Physicochemical Constraints, Cellular Automata and
Molecular Evolution; wherein he defined it as a way to perform experiments using a computer (Autoimmunity Research Foundation, n.d.). In silico testing was discovered because of the incorporation of technology in the performance of experiments in today’s modern world. It is the newest possible way of gaining knowledge among other methods. It is often used in toxicology wherein it determines the reaction of the human body to a drug that is being introduced whether it will be considered as a toxin or
not
(Raunio, 2011). It is considered as another effective alternative because it targets the specific processes that are needed in the experimentation so that no additional trials will be made (Doke & Dhawale, 2013). Amidst its popularity in the scientific community because of its advantages, some people are still doubtful in the efficiency and reliability when it comes to the results that it yields.
People question in silico testing mainly because it is mostly ran by the
computer systems and not the human itself. In silico testing is a complex kind of experiment because much preparation is needed; one has to devote time in installing the computer codes and maintenance of the system in order for the
experiment to yield a minimal and acceptable percentage error (What is ‘in silico’ experimentation?, n.d.). The introduction of such experiment also needs additional knowledge for the scientists for them to configure and properly operate these computer systems; with such complexity present in this kind of experiment, scientists who have backgrounds in operating computer systems are the only ones capable in conducting in silico experiments (What is ‘in silico’ experimentation?, n.d.).
Despite all these disadvantages, there are still advantages to in silico testing.
According to Arora et al. (2011), this mode of experimentation reduces the animals that are being used in animal testing making it a more humane method. In a software called
Computer Aided Drug Design, it evaluates whether a drug will interact to a specific binding site and prohibits from undergoing in vivo confirmatory test on drugs that exhibit no biological activity (Doke and Dhawale, 2013). It makes the setup more reliable in the sense that it is more consistent since variables can be controlled unlike in in vivo testing wherein the health status of an animal shall be taken into consideration because it can affect the outcome of the experiment. In silico testing can also make the translation of the collected data safer and more efficient. Experiments that undergo in silico testing can produce results faster as compared to other means which could take a lot of months or even years just for the results to be available (Arora et al., 2011).
Eventually, in silico testing is a feasible alternative to animal testing because it considers the animals being used in the experiment, it controls all the variables present in the experiment, eradicating the presence of dependent variables and collects experimental results in a faster and systematic process.
Lastly, another alternative to animal testing that will be discussed is microdosing.
According to GreenFacts (n.d.), “microdosing is a technique where people are given extremely low quantities of substances being tested in order to study how the substance behaves in the body. The doses are so low that they are unlikely to produce wholebody effects, but are high enough to allow the cellular response to be studied.” Microdosing is usually dubbed as Phase 0 in establishing a pharmacokinetic data in humans (Rani &
Naidu, 2008). Microdosing was a solution to a longtime problem in the search for new and viable drugs for humans. Because of the inefficiency and expensiveness of in vivo testing or direct experimentation on animals, microdosing was introduced (Rani &
Naidu, 2008).
Even though microdosing provides a clear path in lessening the inefficiency of drugs being produced and the animals being used in experiments, there are still limitations to this technique. As stated by Lappin and Garner (2008), microdosing cannot predict whether there will be side effects present or if the said drug being tested will be toxic to the human body or not. This is why microdosing is not being used on a frequent basis because it only targets a specific area for inquiry; the data that will be present today will be obsolete in the future considering that there are only a few people who undergo experiment or testing (Lappin & Garner, 2008). Laboratory apparatus that are used in microdosing experiments such as the accelerator mass spectrometry and positron emission tomography are bulky and expensive (Human microdosing proves its value in drug and RD, 2005).
Regardless of these negativities, microdosing still is a viable alternative to animal testing because it will reduce the use of animals that are subject for experimentation, decrease the cost of the experiments and obtain a faster conclusion. Laboratory apparatus for microdosing experiments such as the accelerator mass spectrometry may be bulky and expensive but the price is worth enough because it has the sensitivity in tracking and detecting low levels of the drug in the human body (Arnaud, 2013). Rani and Naudio (2008) remarks that animals will not extensively be used in performing microdosing experiments but will only be used for confirmatory tests in accordance to the regulatory requirement. As stated by Professor Colin Garner (Human microdosing proves its worth to drug and RD, 2005), “preclinical studies can take up to 18 months at a cost of $3 million to $5 million. microdosing techniques could reduce the time to four to six months and the cost to $0.35 million per new molecule.”
Eventually, microdosing can be an alternative to animal testing because the use of animals and the cost of experiments are reduced, more efficient in datagathering and obtains a faster result in the experiment that was performed. While for in vitro, costs may be more, depending on the scale, but it proves to be more accurate as far as how humans react towards products.
To sum up, animal cruelty undergoes if people continue to allow animals to be experimented on. Animals have their rights to their own lives just as humans do. If people were to be experimented on, other people would not just sit by and allow it to happen; instead, they would object and fight for their release. There are other means in
obtaining the information scientists’ need, so there is no need to put innocent lives on stake. Alternatives can and should be used in place of animal experimentation.