Why Is Animal Testing On Animals For Medical Research Acceptable
Is testing on animals for medical research acceptable?
Over the years, animal testing has been an argumentative and sensitive subject. With the increased importance of science and medicine over the last century or so, the use of animals in testing and research has increased proportionally, increased awareness of this issue has come about with the advancement into new technology. This has led to much debate both for and against testing expressed in both moderate and more extreme ways. Although there is some evidence to suggest that animal testing is successful in treating medical conditions in humans, it is equally disputed that testing on animals for medical purposes can be cruel and inconclusive. Too often emotion is allowed to overshadow …show more content…
facts and in this essay I will present a balanced argument and give a reliable and considered case for both sides to allow you, the reader to draw your own opinion. The most common arguments for and against will typically discuss the efficiency of testing along with the moral and ethical implications and the available options to using whole animals for research.
Thanks to the internet age where information is readily available and easy to share, and improvements in computer simulation software, the number of animals required for testing can in theory be kept to a minimum.
It would mean scientists using computer models based on previously documented test results, predicting laboratory test results using known data. According to Max Planck institute of Biological Cybernetics (2013: online) no computer modeling is an effective substitute to a live subject. It is said that no type of computer modeling is able to replicate even a small neural population, let alone a complete brain. Due to the nature of their research they do not look at a very broad range of tests, they specifically focus in one area. Various other simulations do exist and are acceptable models in the research of many different fields, for example drug absorption, diabetes and asthma. Despite the success of finding new medicines from this method it is still used in conjunction with, rather than a substitute to live testing and any results found still need to be validated via other methods. Similarly, it has been suggested that lab testing could be an alternative to a certain degree. However this also in practice is an inadequate substitute but can be used effectively along side live testing on the
subject. Although against the principle of animal testing the Royal Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSCPA) (2013: online) are fairly realistic in the way they approach the issue. While the organisation would like to completely stop animal testing they understand that this is somewhat unachievable. Instead they believe that increased regulation should contribute positively towards animal welfare by implementing the “3R’s”. The 3Rs aim to improve animal welfare in a number of ways. Firstly they look at replacement methods that avoid the use of animals where possible. They also want to minimise the amount of animals used for studies and lastly reevaluate existing procedures along side any further factors affecting the animals’ lives, such as the conditions they are kept in. The Animal (Scientific Procedure) Act 1986 (2013: online) confirms that “Project licence holders must ensure their programme of work does not involve any regulated procedures for which there is a scientifically satisfactory alternative method or testing strategy that does not entail the use of a protected animal”. This again goes back to the method of the 3Rs.
When considering the benefits; The Guardian, Tooke, et al (2013: online), offers some support for medical research using animals, as the most effective treatment for Parkinson’s was developed using rabbits. In addition to this the Guardian also argues that without animal testing “we would not have discovered antibiotics, chemotherapy or medical procedures including the use of deep brain stimulation.” This shows that animal testing has been beneficial in treating potentially fatal conditions; therefore it could be argued that animal testing can be acceptable in certain circumstances.
On the other hand the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (2013: online), a charity which prides itself on the welfare of animals in many ethical issues, hold a contrasting argument. They stated that testing on animals has “delayed medical progress and even dangerously derailed our understanding of diseases.” (PETA 2013) To support they say “many studies have shown that animal tests fail to predict reactions in humans accurately, and they sometimes get it right less than 25 per cent of the time” citing “polio transmission, heart disease, and diabetes” as examples. They argue that by testing on animals, research has been inconclusive, as testing on animals cannot be generalised to humans.
The Royal Society is a good source of clear facts. One of their case studies on kidney dialysis states (The Royal society 2004) “Of the 5000 people who develop kidney failure every year in the UK, one in three would die without a kidney transplant or regular dialysis on a kidney machine”. It says that these techniques were tested via the use of rabbits and dogs as they have similar respiratory and cardiovascular systems to humans, therefore are sufficient models for experimentation. Due to this “Each year about 2000 patients in the UK receive a life saving kidney transplant…” this information clearly shows that whole animal testing can be effective.
In conclusion to the evidence and research referenced, it has become evident that testing on animals is beneficial in various fields. The relationship between animals and humans are not identical, however this will evolve under the influence of the technology and previous scientific findings, enabling testers to understand animal cognition and suffering. Nevertheless, changes are necessary to support the requirements of science and the welfare of all animals. There are clear arguments on both sides but with the evidence available it is apparent that at this point in time there are no ways to cease animal testing entirely. This leaves the debate unresolved as there are different parties weighing up the possible suffering of animals against the potential improvement of human health.
References and bibliography
Alternative Methods’ Max Planck institute for Biological Cybernetics Department Physiology of Cognitive Processes (2013: online) http://www.hirnforschung.kyb.mpg.de/en/methods/alternative-methods.html [Accessed 27 November 2013]
ASPA Draft Guidance January 2013 Draft guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (2013: online) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116843/aspa-draft-guidance.pdf [Accessed 28 November 2013]
Why animals are essential in drug and medical research (2013: online) The Guardian. 27 October, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2013/oct/27/letters-animals-medical-research#history-link-box [Accessed 25 October 2013]
The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists (2004) The Royal Society. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2004/9726.pdf [Accessed 27 November 2013]
Implementing 3Rs (2013) RSPCA. http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/implimenting3rs [Accessed 27 November 2013]
animals are not ours to experiment on (2013) PETA. http://origin.www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-are-not-ours-to-experiment-on/ [Accessed on 28 November 2013]
Amy Tipton
Word Count: 1005
Over the years, animal testing has been an argumentative and sensitive subject. With the increased importance of science and medicine over the last century or so, the use of animals in testing and research has increased proportionally, increased awareness of this issue has come about with the advancement into new technology. This has led to much debate both for and against testing expressed in both moderate and more extreme ways. Although there is some evidence to suggest that animal testing is successful in treating medical conditions in humans, it is equally disputed that testing on animals for medical purposes can be cruel and inconclusive. Too often emotion is allowed to overshadow …show more content…
facts and in this essay I will present a balanced argument and give a reliable and considered case for both sides to allow you, the reader to draw your own opinion. The most common arguments for and against will typically discuss the efficiency of testing along with the moral and ethical implications and the available options to using whole animals for research.
Thanks to the internet age where information is readily available and easy to share, and improvements in computer simulation software, the number of animals required for testing can in theory be kept to a minimum.
It would mean scientists using computer models based on previously documented test results, predicting laboratory test results using known data. According to Max Planck institute of Biological Cybernetics (2013: online) no computer modeling is an effective substitute to a live subject. It is said that no type of computer modeling is able to replicate even a small neural population, let alone a complete brain. Due to the nature of their research they do not look at a very broad range of tests, they specifically focus in one area. Various other simulations do exist and are acceptable models in the research of many different fields, for example drug absorption, diabetes and asthma. Despite the success of finding new medicines from this method it is still used in conjunction with, rather than a substitute to live testing and any results found still need to be validated via other methods. Similarly, it has been suggested that lab testing could be an alternative to a certain degree. However this also in practice is an inadequate substitute but can be used effectively along side live testing on the
subject. Although against the principle of animal testing the Royal Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSCPA) (2013: online) are fairly realistic in the way they approach the issue. While the organisation would like to completely stop animal testing they understand that this is somewhat unachievable. Instead they believe that increased regulation should contribute positively towards animal welfare by implementing the “3R’s”. The 3Rs aim to improve animal welfare in a number of ways. Firstly they look at replacement methods that avoid the use of animals where possible. They also want to minimise the amount of animals used for studies and lastly reevaluate existing procedures along side any further factors affecting the animals’ lives, such as the conditions they are kept in. The Animal (Scientific Procedure) Act 1986 (2013: online) confirms that “Project licence holders must ensure their programme of work does not involve any regulated procedures for which there is a scientifically satisfactory alternative method or testing strategy that does not entail the use of a protected animal”. This again goes back to the method of the 3Rs.
When considering the benefits; The Guardian, Tooke, et al (2013: online), offers some support for medical research using animals, as the most effective treatment for Parkinson’s was developed using rabbits. In addition to this the Guardian also argues that without animal testing “we would not have discovered antibiotics, chemotherapy or medical procedures including the use of deep brain stimulation.” This shows that animal testing has been beneficial in treating potentially fatal conditions; therefore it could be argued that animal testing can be acceptable in certain circumstances.
On the other hand the organisation People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (2013: online), a charity which prides itself on the welfare of animals in many ethical issues, hold a contrasting argument. They stated that testing on animals has “delayed medical progress and even dangerously derailed our understanding of diseases.” (PETA 2013) To support they say “many studies have shown that animal tests fail to predict reactions in humans accurately, and they sometimes get it right less than 25 per cent of the time” citing “polio transmission, heart disease, and diabetes” as examples. They argue that by testing on animals, research has been inconclusive, as testing on animals cannot be generalised to humans.
The Royal Society is a good source of clear facts. One of their case studies on kidney dialysis states (The Royal society 2004) “Of the 5000 people who develop kidney failure every year in the UK, one in three would die without a kidney transplant or regular dialysis on a kidney machine”. It says that these techniques were tested via the use of rabbits and dogs as they have similar respiratory and cardiovascular systems to humans, therefore are sufficient models for experimentation. Due to this “Each year about 2000 patients in the UK receive a life saving kidney transplant…” this information clearly shows that whole animal testing can be effective.
In conclusion to the evidence and research referenced, it has become evident that testing on animals is beneficial in various fields. The relationship between animals and humans are not identical, however this will evolve under the influence of the technology and previous scientific findings, enabling testers to understand animal cognition and suffering. Nevertheless, changes are necessary to support the requirements of science and the welfare of all animals. There are clear arguments on both sides but with the evidence available it is apparent that at this point in time there are no ways to cease animal testing entirely. This leaves the debate unresolved as there are different parties weighing up the possible suffering of animals against the potential improvement of human health.
References and bibliography
Alternative Methods’ Max Planck institute for Biological Cybernetics Department Physiology of Cognitive Processes (2013: online) http://www.hirnforschung.kyb.mpg.de/en/methods/alternative-methods.html [Accessed 27 November 2013]
ASPA Draft Guidance January 2013 Draft guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (2013: online) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116843/aspa-draft-guidance.pdf [Accessed 28 November 2013]
Why animals are essential in drug and medical research (2013: online) The Guardian. 27 October, 2013. http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2013/oct/27/letters-animals-medical-research#history-link-box [Accessed 25 October 2013]
The use of non-human animals in research: a guide for scientists (2004) The Royal Society. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2004/9726.pdf [Accessed 27 November 2013]
Implementing 3Rs (2013) RSPCA. http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/researchanimals/implimenting3rs [Accessed 27 November 2013]
animals are not ours to experiment on (2013) PETA. http://origin.www.peta.org.uk/issues/animals-are-not-ours-to-experiment-on/ [Accessed on 28 November 2013]
Amy Tipton
Word Count: 1005