Animal Testing: The Destruction Of Animals
Animal Testing: The Destruction of Animals Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, is the use of non-human animals in experiments and development project, usually to determine toxicity, dosing and efficacy of drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials (Biology online). These tests are to examine new products, such as vaccines, shampoos, household products, cosmetics, foods, and personal care products on the animals so they are “safer” for the consumer, which never is an absolute representation of results on humans. In this process millions of animals are killed during these experiments resulting in some true results, but the majority of the results are incorrect when applied or consumed by people. During animal testing,
…show more content…
animals are getting injured, having to live through pain and sometimes being left to suffer or die so people can waltz around in “fashionable” fur coats, and worst of all, they are dissected and purposely deformed to be tested alive for something we call “science”. These practices should and must be stopped, by replacing it with more computerized models. If we would replace animal testing in this manner it would cost less and have more dependable outcomes. Dr. Ray and Jean Greek wrote,
Animal experimentation is not necessary. It is expensive. It is inaccurate. It is misleading. It consumes limited resources. And further, it is detrimental to the very species it professes to be working to help – humankind,” (CAAT). The use of animals in scientific research started back in the fourth century BCE. One of the first known to have performed experiments on living animals was Aristotle. Two centuries later, a Roman physician named Galen dissected goats and pigs, earning him the title “the father of vivisection,” which is usually referred to as any harmful experience or test that is performed on an animal. In the 1600’s, William Harvey used animals to observe and describe the blood circulatory system. Years later, Stephen Hales used a horse to demonstrate the measurement of blood pressure. In the early nineteenth century, Louis Pasteur infected sheep with anthrax, providing the germ theory of medicine an important advancement which proved that infections did not appear spontaneously. In the 1890’s, Ivan Pavlov trained dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell, by teaching them to associated the sound with food. Throughout the history of animal testing, many arguments against animal testing have been raised being unnecessary and poor scientific practice, but during the nineteenth century, more companies began using animals in testing for a variety of products. Because of the vast increase of testing, many agencies against this practice were developed in agreement with the general public. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are one of the major leaders in this movement to protect the lives of animals. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) came into existence in 1966 which was the first and only animal cruelty law. The act and regulations have set requirements on the care and treatment of certain animals that are sold and transported commercially, used in research, or exhibited for the public to see. AWA has been amended on six occasions which has not helped with animal rights. Activists say it still does not complete the required standard. Today, many people are not aware of how many products are tested on animals. Just because the label on a product says “This finished product was not tested on animals” does not mean it was not tested at all on them. Watch for this, because what has happened is animals have been tested on leading up to the final but not necessarily as the “finished” product. Many people believe that the law requires testing on animals to be done before the products are sold. This in fact is false, most pharmaceutical companies use animal tests mainly to satisfy the government’s regulations. When the product has been tested, the companies can receive liability protection if the product is incorrect, injures or kills a person. Testing protects companies from being penalized because they can claim their product is safe, even if a product blinds a cat, it can still be sold in stores. The only testing required is for marketing industrial chemicals, vaccines and drugs. Not many people are aware that only six per cent of the products tested on animals actually get to the consumers. The government, the public’s tax money, and health charities, such as The American Cancer Society, fund these testings’ on animals, which take place inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, and commercial facilities. The animals that are being researched are either from the wild, the pound, brought from auctions, found in newspaper ads, or from shelters. Research includes genetics, behavior studies, biology research, biomedical research, medicine, cosmetic testing and the education for breeding. Through the process of testing, small rodents like rats and mice, have their spinal cords crushed, suffer seizures, and produce tumors the size of their bodies. Monkeys are forced to take drugs and drink alcohol to help treat addictions, even though scientists are unable to know if an animal is an addict. When testing shampoos on sheep and pigs, the results have caused their skin to be burned off. Also, organs are messed with in cats for body works research. Dogs are shoved into chambers being exposed to deadly poisons that are pumped into the air, which kill many of them. Puppies are forced into kidney failure leaving them with only one working kidney or with some type of damage. Other testing done on dogs and puppies deals with experimental diets which kill them and then their kidneys were analyzed (Algoe). Frogs’ legs are cut off while they are still alive, and the remainders of their bodies are thrown aside dying a slow death. In archaic medical courses, many cats, pigs, and dogs are killed so the students can cut open and practice or explore the animal’s body parts. Also, beagles are forced to smoke cigarettes, while tar is applied to rats’ backs to see their reactions to tobacco. Other animals are forced to inhale chemicals or swallow them and endure pain that is dropped or sprayed on their eyes or skin (SW).
As Dr. Albert Sabin says,
The cancer research bodies cause pain and suffering to hundreds of thousands of animals every year by inducing in the animals, through chemicals or irradiation, larger cancerous growth in their bodies and in their limbs. Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it […] Laboratory cancers have nothing in common with natural human cancers. Tumorous cells are not unrelated to the organism that produced them. Human cancers are greatly different from artificial tumors caused by the experimenters in the laboratories (Pranger). It is estimated 50,000 animals die every year due to Proctor and Gambles’ testing on them. One secretly filmed video sponsored by them showed the horrific treatment and killing of 48 monkeys at Huntingdon Life Sciences. Another company, IAMS, performed tests on 28 female cats by cutting open their abdomens and injecting solution repeatedly into their bowels. Other companies that test on animals include Clorox, Calvin Klein Cosmetics, Cover Girl, Dial Corporation, Johnson&Johnson, and Playtex Products Incorporated (Algoe). The Department of Defense (DoD) kills approximately 320,000 innocent primates a year for an expensive, repetitive, and unreliable outcome, of about $100 million a year. They use primates during bombings, burnings, and are shot by AK-47’s. Statistics show that approximately 70 million animals are maimed, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, hurt, and/or killed. About 85-90% of the testing is on rodents, 1-1.5% is on dogs and cats, and about .5% is on non-human primates (Bishop). In 2002, more than 50 drugs that were approved by the FDA were taken off the market. These products were causing illnesses and deaths in humans. Even though these drugs had passed the tests on animals. In 2006, the FDA showed that 90% of tests passed on animals would fail on humans (Overton). Dr. Arie Brecher wrote,
From an animal one can get only a very approximate indications of how a human will react under similar circumstances. But this is not science it’s a lottery. However, we are not playing games. At stake are health and life. There is absolutely no connection between vivisection and human health. The day it was decided to develop medicaments using animal models, it was a sad day for mankind. People began to get sick and die due to medications. (CAAT).
Testing on animals is supposed to make products more accurate and reliable, but in reality the testing done on them does not produce lifesaving results for humans. The human to animal ratio for side effects of a product is 6:114. The drug Vioxx was an arthritis drug which was beneficial to animals. In the U.S. alone, Vioxx caused over 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in a year (Archibald). Before Vioxx was given to humans, the FDA described Vioxx as the “single for greatest, drug-safest in the history of the world” (Conolly). Many drugs benefited animals while patients on the drug were injured or killed in clinical trials. In Hormone-Replacement Therapy, monkeys’ risk for heart disease decreased while women’s risks were increased.
It also caused 20,000 cases of breast cancer in one decade (Bishop). Other false test results have been caused by strychnine, belladonna, arsenic, hemlock, and poisonous mushrooms. Strychnine is deadly to humans, but harmless to monkeys, chickens, and guinea pigs. Bellandonna is lethal to people, but will not hurt goats and rabbit. Arsenic is harmless to sheep, but deadly to people. Poisonous mushrooms are a meal for rabbits. Hemlock and PCP are deadly for humans, but harmless to mice, sheep, goats, horses. Through the testing of cigarette smoke forced on animals, there are no founded negative effects. The results of second-hand smoke on animals, does not produce cancer. Asbestos, benzene, alcohol, and glass fibers are all proven to be harmless to animals. For spinal cord injuries, there are 22 drugs therapeutic to animals and none of them help humans (Conolly). People who believe animal testing is the best method inadvertently think it is the safest way to cause no harm to humans. This obviously is not the safest way because it has been proven that vaccines and medication on animals does not necessarily have the same effect for humans. There are huge physiological differences among rabbits, dogs, pigs, and humans, which complicate the reliability of the tests. Those who oppose animal testing believe there are better and more improved ways rather than taking an innocent …show more content…
animal’s life. As consumers, we need to be more aware of the products available that do not use animal testing. People must remember that while companies search for various alternatives, animal testing increases because the former test of using animals must be done along with the new test without animals to be sure of consistent results. It has been found that non-animal testing is cheaper, faster, and more accurate compared to the past methods which produce slower results, are more expensive and are of little value to humans. The use of human skin left over from surgical procedures or donated cadavers are now being used in testing. Some tests include the EpiDerm test which has been accepted as a reliable test. Also, the majority of medical schools in the United States, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, are now using teaching methods which are effective with the use of non-animal testing. An increasing number of veterinary schools have also started using tests which save the lives of countless animals, who in the past, would have been killed for dissection. In vitro, the alternative test, eliminates animals except for a few tests which are reproductive toxicity, repeat dose toxicity, and toxic kinetics. Many companies are now switching to this method for more cruel-free products (SAT). If one big company switched its ways and set an example, imagine how many animals would be saved every day, but many researchers who have been shown alternatives are not willing to change their way at all. Many doctors would agree that animal testing is not a reliable method of providing evidence for the safety of foods and drugs.
Dr. Mark Feinberg said “that since humans behave totally different from monkeys, testing a vaccine in a monkey is a waste of time.” Dr. Michael Klaper said that he cannot remember a single instance where his medical judgment was even remotely influenced by tests using animals as subjects. Dr. Neil Barnard said “not only are these studies lacking validity but they also use money that should be used for patient care needs.” Dr. Robert Mendelsohn said, “The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn’t work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that”
(CAAT). As more scientists begin looking at non-animal models to provide more information, not only will the number of animal deaths be decreased, but it will speed up the drug approval process. Hopefully, someday computer modeling can replace all animal testing. Experimental animals are burned, skinned alive and left to die. They are dissected and purposely deformed to be tested alive for something we call “science”. There are several ways a consumer can stop such barbaric methods, starting with refusing to donate funds to the research and making ourselves more aware of the products we currently purchase on the market. Another suggestion is to write a letter urging companies to find an alternative method of testing without involving animals. Every individual can make a difference in the number of animals being mistreated every day by participating in saying “stop, the cruelty of animal testing”.
Works Cited
Algoe, Sara. "Animals Should Not Be Used for Medical Experimentation." n.d. HubPages. 9 March 2013 .
Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1936.
Conolly, Rory B. "Computational Systems Biology and Dose-Response Modeling in Relation to New Directions in Toxicity Testing." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (2010): Part B 253-276. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 April 2013.
Cothran, Helen. Animal Experimentation Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Crowley, Cathleen F. "Judge Rejects Claim Animal-Rights Terrorist Threaten Scientists." Student Research Center (2010). Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 April 2013.
Fano, Alix. Lethal Laws: animal testing, human health and environmental policy. New York : Zed Books Ltd, 1965.
—. Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy. Zed Books, 1997.
Jasper, James M. The Animal Rights Crusade. New York: The Free Press, 1957.
McCoy, Joseph j. Animals in Research: Issues and Conflicts. New York: Franklin Watts, 1917.
Perez, Linda Merz and Kathleen M. Heide. Animal Cruelty. Rowman Altamira (2004). Academic Search Premier. Wed. 7 April 2013.
PETA Corporation. "Animals Used for Experimentation ." 29 March 2011. PETA.org. 9 March 2013 .
animals are getting injured, having to live through pain and sometimes being left to suffer or die so people can waltz around in “fashionable” fur coats, and worst of all, they are dissected and purposely deformed to be tested alive for something we call “science”. These practices should and must be stopped, by replacing it with more computerized models. If we would replace animal testing in this manner it would cost less and have more dependable outcomes. Dr. Ray and Jean Greek wrote,
Animal experimentation is not necessary. It is expensive. It is inaccurate. It is misleading. It consumes limited resources. And further, it is detrimental to the very species it professes to be working to help – humankind,” (CAAT). The use of animals in scientific research started back in the fourth century BCE. One of the first known to have performed experiments on living animals was Aristotle. Two centuries later, a Roman physician named Galen dissected goats and pigs, earning him the title “the father of vivisection,” which is usually referred to as any harmful experience or test that is performed on an animal. In the 1600’s, William Harvey used animals to observe and describe the blood circulatory system. Years later, Stephen Hales used a horse to demonstrate the measurement of blood pressure. In the early nineteenth century, Louis Pasteur infected sheep with anthrax, providing the germ theory of medicine an important advancement which proved that infections did not appear spontaneously. In the 1890’s, Ivan Pavlov trained dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell, by teaching them to associated the sound with food. Throughout the history of animal testing, many arguments against animal testing have been raised being unnecessary and poor scientific practice, but during the nineteenth century, more companies began using animals in testing for a variety of products. Because of the vast increase of testing, many agencies against this practice were developed in agreement with the general public. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are one of the major leaders in this movement to protect the lives of animals. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) came into existence in 1966 which was the first and only animal cruelty law. The act and regulations have set requirements on the care and treatment of certain animals that are sold and transported commercially, used in research, or exhibited for the public to see. AWA has been amended on six occasions which has not helped with animal rights. Activists say it still does not complete the required standard. Today, many people are not aware of how many products are tested on animals. Just because the label on a product says “This finished product was not tested on animals” does not mean it was not tested at all on them. Watch for this, because what has happened is animals have been tested on leading up to the final but not necessarily as the “finished” product. Many people believe that the law requires testing on animals to be done before the products are sold. This in fact is false, most pharmaceutical companies use animal tests mainly to satisfy the government’s regulations. When the product has been tested, the companies can receive liability protection if the product is incorrect, injures or kills a person. Testing protects companies from being penalized because they can claim their product is safe, even if a product blinds a cat, it can still be sold in stores. The only testing required is for marketing industrial chemicals, vaccines and drugs. Not many people are aware that only six per cent of the products tested on animals actually get to the consumers. The government, the public’s tax money, and health charities, such as The American Cancer Society, fund these testings’ on animals, which take place inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, and commercial facilities. The animals that are being researched are either from the wild, the pound, brought from auctions, found in newspaper ads, or from shelters. Research includes genetics, behavior studies, biology research, biomedical research, medicine, cosmetic testing and the education for breeding. Through the process of testing, small rodents like rats and mice, have their spinal cords crushed, suffer seizures, and produce tumors the size of their bodies. Monkeys are forced to take drugs and drink alcohol to help treat addictions, even though scientists are unable to know if an animal is an addict. When testing shampoos on sheep and pigs, the results have caused their skin to be burned off. Also, organs are messed with in cats for body works research. Dogs are shoved into chambers being exposed to deadly poisons that are pumped into the air, which kill many of them. Puppies are forced into kidney failure leaving them with only one working kidney or with some type of damage. Other testing done on dogs and puppies deals with experimental diets which kill them and then their kidneys were analyzed (Algoe). Frogs’ legs are cut off while they are still alive, and the remainders of their bodies are thrown aside dying a slow death. In archaic medical courses, many cats, pigs, and dogs are killed so the students can cut open and practice or explore the animal’s body parts. Also, beagles are forced to smoke cigarettes, while tar is applied to rats’ backs to see their reactions to tobacco. Other animals are forced to inhale chemicals or swallow them and endure pain that is dropped or sprayed on their eyes or skin (SW).
As Dr. Albert Sabin says,
The cancer research bodies cause pain and suffering to hundreds of thousands of animals every year by inducing in the animals, through chemicals or irradiation, larger cancerous growth in their bodies and in their limbs. Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it […] Laboratory cancers have nothing in common with natural human cancers. Tumorous cells are not unrelated to the organism that produced them. Human cancers are greatly different from artificial tumors caused by the experimenters in the laboratories (Pranger). It is estimated 50,000 animals die every year due to Proctor and Gambles’ testing on them. One secretly filmed video sponsored by them showed the horrific treatment and killing of 48 monkeys at Huntingdon Life Sciences. Another company, IAMS, performed tests on 28 female cats by cutting open their abdomens and injecting solution repeatedly into their bowels. Other companies that test on animals include Clorox, Calvin Klein Cosmetics, Cover Girl, Dial Corporation, Johnson&Johnson, and Playtex Products Incorporated (Algoe). The Department of Defense (DoD) kills approximately 320,000 innocent primates a year for an expensive, repetitive, and unreliable outcome, of about $100 million a year. They use primates during bombings, burnings, and are shot by AK-47’s. Statistics show that approximately 70 million animals are maimed, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, hurt, and/or killed. About 85-90% of the testing is on rodents, 1-1.5% is on dogs and cats, and about .5% is on non-human primates (Bishop). In 2002, more than 50 drugs that were approved by the FDA were taken off the market. These products were causing illnesses and deaths in humans. Even though these drugs had passed the tests on animals. In 2006, the FDA showed that 90% of tests passed on animals would fail on humans (Overton). Dr. Arie Brecher wrote,
From an animal one can get only a very approximate indications of how a human will react under similar circumstances. But this is not science it’s a lottery. However, we are not playing games. At stake are health and life. There is absolutely no connection between vivisection and human health. The day it was decided to develop medicaments using animal models, it was a sad day for mankind. People began to get sick and die due to medications. (CAAT).
Testing on animals is supposed to make products more accurate and reliable, but in reality the testing done on them does not produce lifesaving results for humans. The human to animal ratio for side effects of a product is 6:114. The drug Vioxx was an arthritis drug which was beneficial to animals. In the U.S. alone, Vioxx caused over 140,000 heart attacks and strokes in a year (Archibald). Before Vioxx was given to humans, the FDA described Vioxx as the “single for greatest, drug-safest in the history of the world” (Conolly). Many drugs benefited animals while patients on the drug were injured or killed in clinical trials. In Hormone-Replacement Therapy, monkeys’ risk for heart disease decreased while women’s risks were increased.
It also caused 20,000 cases of breast cancer in one decade (Bishop). Other false test results have been caused by strychnine, belladonna, arsenic, hemlock, and poisonous mushrooms. Strychnine is deadly to humans, but harmless to monkeys, chickens, and guinea pigs. Bellandonna is lethal to people, but will not hurt goats and rabbit. Arsenic is harmless to sheep, but deadly to people. Poisonous mushrooms are a meal for rabbits. Hemlock and PCP are deadly for humans, but harmless to mice, sheep, goats, horses. Through the testing of cigarette smoke forced on animals, there are no founded negative effects. The results of second-hand smoke on animals, does not produce cancer. Asbestos, benzene, alcohol, and glass fibers are all proven to be harmless to animals. For spinal cord injuries, there are 22 drugs therapeutic to animals and none of them help humans (Conolly). People who believe animal testing is the best method inadvertently think it is the safest way to cause no harm to humans. This obviously is not the safest way because it has been proven that vaccines and medication on animals does not necessarily have the same effect for humans. There are huge physiological differences among rabbits, dogs, pigs, and humans, which complicate the reliability of the tests. Those who oppose animal testing believe there are better and more improved ways rather than taking an innocent …show more content…
animal’s life. As consumers, we need to be more aware of the products available that do not use animal testing. People must remember that while companies search for various alternatives, animal testing increases because the former test of using animals must be done along with the new test without animals to be sure of consistent results. It has been found that non-animal testing is cheaper, faster, and more accurate compared to the past methods which produce slower results, are more expensive and are of little value to humans. The use of human skin left over from surgical procedures or donated cadavers are now being used in testing. Some tests include the EpiDerm test which has been accepted as a reliable test. Also, the majority of medical schools in the United States, including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, are now using teaching methods which are effective with the use of non-animal testing. An increasing number of veterinary schools have also started using tests which save the lives of countless animals, who in the past, would have been killed for dissection. In vitro, the alternative test, eliminates animals except for a few tests which are reproductive toxicity, repeat dose toxicity, and toxic kinetics. Many companies are now switching to this method for more cruel-free products (SAT). If one big company switched its ways and set an example, imagine how many animals would be saved every day, but many researchers who have been shown alternatives are not willing to change their way at all. Many doctors would agree that animal testing is not a reliable method of providing evidence for the safety of foods and drugs.
Dr. Mark Feinberg said “that since humans behave totally different from monkeys, testing a vaccine in a monkey is a waste of time.” Dr. Michael Klaper said that he cannot remember a single instance where his medical judgment was even remotely influenced by tests using animals as subjects. Dr. Neil Barnard said “not only are these studies lacking validity but they also use money that should be used for patient care needs.” Dr. Robert Mendelsohn said, “The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn’t work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that”
(CAAT). As more scientists begin looking at non-animal models to provide more information, not only will the number of animal deaths be decreased, but it will speed up the drug approval process. Hopefully, someday computer modeling can replace all animal testing. Experimental animals are burned, skinned alive and left to die. They are dissected and purposely deformed to be tested alive for something we call “science”. There are several ways a consumer can stop such barbaric methods, starting with refusing to donate funds to the research and making ourselves more aware of the products we currently purchase on the market. Another suggestion is to write a letter urging companies to find an alternative method of testing without involving animals. Every individual can make a difference in the number of animals being mistreated every day by participating in saying “stop, the cruelty of animal testing”.
Works Cited
Algoe, Sara. "Animals Should Not Be Used for Medical Experimentation." n.d. HubPages. 9 March 2013 .
Cohen, Daniel. Animal Rights. Brookfield: The Millbrook Press, 1936.
Conolly, Rory B. "Computational Systems Biology and Dose-Response Modeling in Relation to New Directions in Toxicity Testing." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (2010): Part B 253-276. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 April 2013.
Cothran, Helen. Animal Experimentation Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Crowley, Cathleen F. "Judge Rejects Claim Animal-Rights Terrorist Threaten Scientists." Student Research Center (2010). Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 April 2013.
Fano, Alix. Lethal Laws: animal testing, human health and environmental policy. New York : Zed Books Ltd, 1965.
—. Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy. Zed Books, 1997.
Jasper, James M. The Animal Rights Crusade. New York: The Free Press, 1957.
McCoy, Joseph j. Animals in Research: Issues and Conflicts. New York: Franklin Watts, 1917.
Perez, Linda Merz and Kathleen M. Heide. Animal Cruelty. Rowman Altamira (2004). Academic Search Premier. Wed. 7 April 2013.
PETA Corporation. "Animals Used for Experimentation ." 29 March 2011. PETA.org. 9 March 2013 .