Animal Testing Research Paper

Animal Experimentation The practice of animal experimentation has increased tremendously over the globe. Animal research is immoral because animals are being subjected to not being properly advocated for, are experiencing detrimental testing and there are alternative methods other than crucial animal experiments. Animal testing is defined as a scientific experiment to where a live animal is forced to undergo something that is likely to cause them “fear, discomfort, pain or distress” (Fisher). Animal experiments include injecting them with harmful substances, exposing animals to radiation, removing organs, forcing them to inhale toxic gases, and other horrifying procedures. Although through animal testing some diseases have been cured, there
Many animals such as fish, guinea pigs, cats and dogs are killed daily by scientific experiments that the United States has labeled “ethically justifiable” (Kolar 116). Ironically, according to Science and Engineering Ethics by Roman Kolar only 30% of all animal experiments “undergo an ethical evaluation process” and “many places do not have to be justified or evaluated by an ethics committee” (Kolar 117). The major problem of ethical evaluation of animal experiments supposedly is weighing the costs of the animals verses the benefit of the experiment, therefore most experiments are proceeded when needed not to be. Onwards, one toxin tested on animals that is deadly to them is LD-50 “which is commonly used to test cosmetics”, “household products and industrial products” (Bernstein 132). LD-50 is commonly tested on mice, rats, birds, and fish. The poison is “poured through a tube and inserted down the animal’s throat” and the animals react usually by “suffer[ing] immensely” as they experience “bleed[ing], diarrhea, and scream” (Bernstein 132). In discussion with this, Ld-50 is just a single dose which may yield results completely irrelevant to humans and the results of the test differ widely between species so the accuracy of the experiment is
According to Human and Experimental Toxicology, “regulatory authorities have approved 63 alternative methods” yet safety testing still uses large numbers of animals that involve pain and stress (Stokes 1298). As well, one alternative method that has proved to be successful is the “murine local lymph node assay” which is an alternative test method that “incorporates an earlier mechanistic humane endpoint that completely avoids pain and distress” (Stokes 1300). With this alternative method, animals such as cats and dogs won’t have to be induced with toxins to determine if a chemical has allergic dermatitis. The replacement of animal models for testing will be the most beneficial for animal welfare and according to Human and Experimental Toxicology “appears to be feasible for estimating local toxicities” (Stokes 1300). For instance, in replacement for most rabbits for pyrogen testing are now bacterial endotoxin and human monocyte activation tests which eliminate the use of rabbits. Because of the “tightly controlled laboratory conditions” that these animals are in and “without sufficient critical evaluation” it is important that alternative methods are further looked into for the future of toxicology research (Green 3). Based on this data, it is possible to end animal testing and begin