Do you believe that an animal’s life has the same equal significance as a Humans life? Animal testing is used to develop lifesaving medications and treatments for humans. The research has been developing over hundreds of years. There has been many medical treatments that have benefits human life immensely. This is including cancer and HIV drugs, insulin, vaccinations and many antibiotics. On the other hand, there are many people opposed to animal testing. They believe that it is cruel and inhumane to use animals since there are many harming side effects and millions of animals die from the testing. There are a lot of down sides to animal testing and I do agree that the practices may not be completely safe for the animals but …show more content…
When testing medication on these animals you are able to see the results thought the entire life of the animal for more accurate results. Mice and rats are particularly well-suited to long term cancer research, partly because of their short lifespans. ("Animal Testing - ProCon.org," 2014) Since there are animals that are bred for only this reason there has been many laws put into place to protect animals from mistreatment. There are local and states laws that have always been in place. But animal research is regulated by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) since 1966. This Act enforces minimum housing regulations and standards for animals (enclosure size, temperature, access to clean food and water and more), also the AWA requires regular visits and checkups with a veterinarian for all animals. The research animals are cared for by veterinarians, husbandry specialists, and animal health technicians to insure their overall well-being and more accurate findings. According to the Journal Nature Genetics, because “stressed or crowded animals can lead to unreliable search results in testing, and many phenotype are only accessible in contented animals in enriched environments, it is in the best interests of the researchers not to cut corners or to neglect welfare issues” (“Bekoff, 2007”) Some people believe that the animals …show more content…
In Vitro (in glass) testing, such as studding cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used. There is also the option to use Micro testing, the administration of small doses, too small to cause and adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood can then be analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and
ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin. There are many reasons as to why the research done on animals may not be accurate because the anatomic, metabolic and cellular difference between animals and people which make animals poor models for human beings. (Rogers, 2007)
A big epidemic in testing is that drugs that pass animal tests are not necessarily safe for human consumption. In the 1950s the sleeping pill thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities, was tested on animals prior to its release. There was also the drug Vioxx for arthritis when tested it had positive response on the heart of mice, when the drug was released to humans there were more than 27,000 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths before being pulled from the market. (Medical Articles and Infographics, 2014)
In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.
They are the chemico approach, the vitro approach, the silico approach, computer simulator, and using humans to test called the human patch test (Vandebriel, Loveren 1). Most if not all of the articles discuss the vitro testing to some degree. Vitro testing involves using cellular/culture based toxicity tests to see how it would affect humans and other living organisms that might be exposed to the product (Mone, 2). As more research is being done on this method of testing it is becoming more evident among companies that are making the transition from animal testing to this method. In the Korean Cosmetics company article it included a section about a Norwegian and UK collaboration that wanted to further the research vitro testing. Another method that is becoming popular is silico testing. Silico testing is type of modelization (Dreno Et. Al.1). It is pretty similar to vitro testing but focuses more on the different pathogens that are involved and can pass through the vitro testing.
Granted, despite the extremely low success rate of passing drugs, the few that do end up succeeding save and improve human lives all around. However, this practice is hurting animals at our expense, and we don’t even have to experiment on these animals to get the results being strived for. There are many alternatives to animal testing, some even more productive and accurate than the current, inhumane tests. Artificial skin is one of these. Artificial skin is large sheets of lab made skin cells. This would be very useful for cosmetic testing because if the substance being tested was toxic, animals would not get rashes or being injured. Also, this would be a limitless source of testing material, and provide more accurate results because the skin is much more similar to a human's than an animal's. Another possible solution is in vitro testing. This is when scientists extract human cells and do tests on them in petri dishes. Once again, this too is more effective than animal testing because there are real human cells instead of animal cells. But, the cells are not entirely effective because they are not in the body and are not responding they way they would in their natural environment. An even better solution is body chips. These miracle workers are chips with organ cells in them. It acts as the cells “environment” and makes it respond normally to drugs and disease. The
Animals endure so much pain and suffering when being tested on. In some cases, animal testing can be deadly or lead to serious side effects that will forever stick with the animal that was tested on. Animals hardly ever, to never benefit from testing. In research and testing, animals are subjected to experiments that can include everything from testing new drugs to infecting with diseases, poisoning for toxicity testing, burning skin, causing brain damage, implanting electrodes into the brain, maiming, blinding, and other painful and invasive procedures (NEAVS). It can include protocols that cause severe suffering. Also, can’t forget about the restricted living conditions where animals are forced to live in an unhealthy habitat out of their own element during the testing period. Animals in labs suffer not only pain from protocols, but also severe stress from day-to-day laboratory life. They spend their lives in barren cages, unable to make choices or express natural behaviors. Most never experience fresh air or sunshine, only bars and concrete. Although most think that the Animal Welfare Act protects animals from abuse, it is a common misconception that the AWA protects animals against abuse and harm in the laboratory or in other areas of commerce. This is not true. According to the National Anti-Vivisection Society the AWA regulates the use of animals in research and outlines standards for their care, it does not protect
Researchers treat animals right because they use them to uncover cures and treatment that humans can use. Scientist Hollis Cline and Mar Sanchez stated, “that animals in research are treated “humanely and with dignity” (Garner, 2016). These two scientists reassured the reader that animals subjected to testing are treated with respect. They are not treated in bad testing conditions, which may harm the animals and manipulate the outcome of the test. In addition to these scientists claim, there are also laws protecting animals, such as “federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)” (ProCon, 2017). Treating these animals with dignity is correct by the researchers because the animal is sacrificing his/her freedom to the outside world so it can be experiment on to find medical treatments and cures for
Initially you might believe that animals have moral rights. Animals tested are don’t even have the mental capacity to comprehend different objects, let alone what they’re going through. They just have similar features of a human, which outside of this scenario would be completely useless. Another argument might be how testing doesn’t have guaranteed results, but hurts organisms in the process. While this is true, testing has an 83.7% success rate, while taking in consideration animals that were too weak to live past a few hours. Taking note of how only a few hundred animals are tested on a year, that 16.3% is a minimal amount. This is all for the better of humans, and even animals. After all, animal products are created off of these tests too. The death of a few animals, is better for us, and the rest of
There are many different tests that are performed on animals. According to The Humane Society of The United States (n.d), “it is estimated that 500,000 mice, guinea pigs, rats, and rabbits suffer and die in these tests every year throughout the world.” 500,000 innocent animals are used to improve cosmetic company’s products. One example of a test performed on animals are skin irritation/corrosion. According to the Humane Society of The United States (n.d.), “The test substance is applied to the shaved skin of a rabbit. Their skin may show signs of redness, rash,
Alternative testing methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. In vitro (in glass) testing, such as studying cell cultures in a petri dish, can produce more relevant results than animal testing because human cells can be used.  Microdosing, the administering of doses too small to cause adverse reactions, can be used in human volunteers, whose blood is then analyzed. Artificial human skin, such as the commercially available products EpiDerm and ThinCert, is made from sheets of human skin cells grown in test tubes or plastic wells and can produce more useful results than testing chemicals on animal skin.  Microfluidic chips ("organs on a chip"), which are lined with human cells and recreate the functions of human organs, are in advanced stages of development. Computer models, such as virtual reconstructions of human molecular structures, can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on animals. 
A lot of people don’t take it into consideration, but it’s an issue that we really need to address. Animal testing is cruelty more than science. Animals are not treated well and are often abused by their handlers. They are not just objects. They have feelings and can think, just like us humans do. Namely,
federal law that covers animals in research” (Laws and Regulations | Animal Use in Research). What protection does this provide for animals in use for research purposes? This Act provides the minimum standards by which the animals must be housed, fed, handled and attended to health wise. The Act further minimizes and limits its protection to only a number of species of which includes dogs, chimpanzees, cats and other warm-blooded animals. Some of the species that are not protected from this act include rats, mice and birds as well as many cold-blooded animals. One of the animals that I hear a lot about, as far as testing goes, is mice. Mice are used in a lot of testing ranging from cancer research, in an attempt to find new drugs, all the way to research in diabetes. The mice provide useful models for a wide range of human diseases and are not protected under the Animal Welfare Act so the treatment of these types of animals is unregulated. Some people may say that they are just mice, but they are still animals and experience pain and symptoms just like any other animal even though they are a pest. The reason mice make good test subjects for pharmaceutical companies is because of how similar the biological and genetic characteristics are to a human thus allowing for comparative testing. If this “compound” was found to have this effect on mice, then it would have a similar effect on humans and so on. The amount of
Within these test tubes, scientists have been able to mimic the structure of human cells and tissue in order for the test to be precise and directed as a safety test for the human species. This method utilizes glass test tubes which can grow human cells and tissue from donated human cells. According to PETA, Harvard's Wyss Institute has created an organs on chip which is a chip containing human cells built in a system they have created. These chips have been and will continue to be a great alternative to animal testing and have the ability to replace some animals for experimental testing. Although the in vitro method may not be able to broadly replace animal testing, it does do the job of predicting more precise effects drugs will have on humans because these test tubes actually have replicas of human cells and tissues. Unlike testing on animals, the in vitro will directly have effects seen on the human species which makes the most sense as all the testing is towards the safety of humans anyway. This method of experimental testing will improve the understanding of just how certain drugs and chemicals will affect the human body. This method has potential to help animals be bred solely for testing, as does the in silico
Because of technology there are alternatives to animal testing. Alternatives may include: the 3T3 Neutral Red Update Phototoxicity test, Human-skin equivalent tests such as EpiDerm or EpiSkin, and structure-activity relationship models. A lot of companies have decided against testing on animals and began to take advantage of non-animal testing such as cell and tissue cultures to computerized models. Some tests, such as, the EpiDerm and Episkin tests are replacements for animal-based skin-corrosion studies. These tests create normal, human skin cells that form a multilayered model of human skin. (Product Testing: Toxic and Tragic). The 3T3 test is a replacement for animal-based photoxicity studies. In this test, cells from a certain 3T3 cell line are exposed to chemicals and they get the results from the presence and absence of
Stated by Mahatma Gandhi, “The greatness of the nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Medical research on animals is an effective way for scientist to test different medical discoveries and experiment before using them on humans to check their result. This technique has been used for centuries dating back to people such and Aristotle and Erasistratus. What exactly is medical research on animals? When we take a deeper look into the experiment that are preformed we can conclude that animals are a living model of humans in these laboratories. It is a necessity to harm and test animals with new drugs in order to market them in the medical industry to aid human illnesses. In order to better comprehend and regulate drugs one must understand what medical research on animals is described as and its benefits to pharmaceutical companies for humans. Exposure to the trials and tribulations that animal testing reveals how important it is for scientists to understand the negative effects they contribute to an animal’s welfare and life. In contrary animal testing has been used to save many human lives from consuming or using a drug that could have caused them life threatening illnesses.
Animal testing has long played a part in the science of testing, and it still plays a very important role in the medical world. Testing on animals in order to create a cure for AIDS is one thing, but testing on animals for human vanity is another. Animal testing is used to test the safety of a product. It has kept some very unsafe substances out of the cosmetic world. However, in this day in age, animal testing is not the only way to test the safety of a product. Animal testing in cosmetics has decreased over the years. However, it is still used by many companies in America. Animal testing is not only cruel, but it is also unnecessary in today’s advanced scientific world.