Animal Testing Whole-Body

As of 2015, 200 to 225 million animals are said to used in laboratory research for the biomedical industry annually worldwide. Typically defended by arguments of reliability and human health benefits, recently the question of ethics and values placed on animal testing have caused it to become a relevant and pressing topic that has been more widely discussed and debated. First off, the laboratory conditions that are instigated upon millions of animal models for the sake of medical research has been said to be unethical and cruel. Additionally, it has been debated that the results of animal experimentation are unreliable across a wide range of areas. Lastly, animal testing not only leads away from the direction of resources from more effective testing methods but also prolongs the duration of time humans may need to wait for an effective cure. Therefore, the potential benefits of animal experimentation are greatly outweighed by the risks and collective harm of humans and animals which is why resources should be directed towards more human-based testing procedures.

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

Throughout the years the use of animals in medical research has been a hot debate around the world. Although animal testing may be cruel and inhumane, thousands of humans are saved thanks to the research that animals supply researchers with. Animals testing have taken over our knowledge of medicine and treatments to a whole different level. Animal testing also does this in a cheap and effective way. Without animals testing out knowledge wouldn’t be up to date, in other words animals’ testing is good.

Aziz, T., & Stein, J. (2011). Animal testing: TV or not TV? Two views on whether scientists

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

Whether animal testing is considered to be useful or unnecessary in the development of medicine is an ongoing discussion. Animal testing is the issue Andrew Rowan and Jack Botting with Adrian Morrison discuss in both their articles. “Avoiding Animal Testing” was written in 2011 by Andrew Rowan and was published in The Scientist. Jack Botting along with Adrian Morrison are the authors of “Animals are Vital to Medicine,” which was published in the Scientific American. All three authors clearly state their position on this issue from the beginning of their articles, starting with each of their titles. In “Avoiding Animal

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

Animal testing enthusiast explains how research has enabled the expansion of many life-saving treatments for both humans and animals. Enlightening that there are no alternative methods for researching complete living organisms, totaling that there are strict regulations to prevent abuse of animals within laboratories (Lawrie, 2014).

This dichotomy remains relevant as certain groups of animal rights activists continue to progress research towards more humane protocol (Galvin & Herzog, 1992), while research advocates believe such practices are necessary and should involve less hindrances in order to fulfill research goals (Lyons, 2011). Precedent suggests that the majority of surveyors support animal research due to its benefits in furthering medical applications (Dolan, 2002; Lund, Morkbak, Lassen, & Sandoe, 2014), yet animal rights advocates have endured a historic conflict. Such advocates have perpetuated paradigmatic discussion for contemplating the weaknesses in animal research policies (e.g. the subjective scaling of research severity – mild, moderate, severe) (Lyons, 2011). When analyzing the perspectives of advocates and adversaries through history and studies, the ability to determine the ethicality of animal research is impossible. More legislation against animal research is not necessarily the answer, but one political solution has been to settle the dissension through a personalized assessment of individual cases (Rollins, 2006). If animal research continues, a case-by-case analysis of research studies is the only ethical manner to appease the tension between advocates and adversaries.

Worldwide, the first law to regulate animal experimentation was the Cruelty to Animals Act in 1876. It established a central governing body that reviewed all animal use in research. After that, numerous countries in Europe adopted regulations regarding research with animals. In all animal research, prior to undergoing any examinations on animals, researchers must demonstrate that there is no alternative to using animals and that the likely benefits of the science outweigh any potential

Provides adequate living, whole body system test subject. No other living thing in this planet has the closest anatomical structure as humans than animals. A human body is extremely complex that cell cultures in a petri dish cannot provide sufficient test results or proof that a cure or product is effective.Testing a drug for side effects, for example, requires a circulatory system that will carry the drug

But, how should animal research be regulated and how is it regulated? One policy of animal testing regulation is the U.K.’s. They have rules that make sure that barely any animals are used or harmed and are used or harmed as little as possible. Here are some of the rules that the EMA (European Medicines Agency) have come up

Those for animal testing feel that it is not cruel and inhumane and it has successfully contributed to life-saving cures and treatments. They feel as if they have been given restrictions on how they treat the animals as they treat the animals as they should be. To even receive any money towards institutions and testing, they must go by the policies placed on behalf of the humane care and use of laboratory animals set by PHS-Public Health Service. As they see it, they already have to abide by certain strict policies which are placed to protect the animals from being abused in anyway, and as long as they continue to do so they are allowed to conduct researches and studies. They understand that many are concerned for the animal’s safety, but having the scientists to test possible cures that could possibly be a cure for disease that has already taken too many lives from parents, children, and siblings.

Differences in the anatomy, cellular functions, metabolism, and chemical absorbency rates, among many other functional disparities, are responsible for the fallible conclusions reached in scientific studies employed on animals. The use of extrapolation to engage successful findings from laboratory experiments to real-world settings has proven wrong on many occasions. An example of this situation is in the field of cancer research. Millions of taxation dollars are put to use annually in medical procedures aimed at finding a cure for the horrific cancer disease. Yet, statistical updates confirm that, “the average rate of successful translation from animal models to clinical cancer trials is less than 8%” (Mak). Established around the belief that potential treatments should be conducted on animals instead of humans, it seems unreasonable to consider the prior statistic in relation to combating any hope of avoiding impracticality and unethical circumstances. Clearly, animals are merely employed as substitutions for this form of medical testing. Authors Isabella WY Mak, Nathan Evaniew, and Michelle Ghert recognize that “there is a growing awareness of the limitations of animal research and its inability to make reliable predictions for human clinical trials”. Animal studies often overestimate the successful likelihood of a treatment because negative results are not

Animal and human structures more different than they are alike so products tested often prove to be ineffective or harmful when clinically tested. In recent years many alternative methods have been developed and proven to produce more effective results. Vitro-testing is the study of cells in petri dishes, this can give more accurate results because human cells can be used. Microdosing is the process of giving minimal amounts of a product/medicine to subjects to see if reaction occurs, this eliminates the possibility of a deadly allergic reaction but still gives accurate results. Microfluidic chips also known as “organs on a chip” contain samples of human tissue from different parts of the body, these are linked by microchannels which then a blood substitute is run through the channels to represent bodily functions. Computer models are virtual reconstructions of human organs. These models have helped with car crashes, different surgery studies and many other tests to see if human reaction occurs. The last new test that has helped provide an alternative to animal testing is human skin. Just as with reconstructive surgeries, human skin can be donated to be tested on, this does not put humans at any risk at all. Tissue can also be donated after a person has passed, just like brain and heart tissue is donated to be studied by medical students. All of these tests have proved to be more effective than the