Aspa Animal Testing

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

Ever since the late 1960’s and the early 1970’s, animal research has been under extreme fire for what they do. This is mainly due to the many changing perspectives on the relationship between humans and the other aspects of the world that are surrounding them. There are many main reasons for this change, but the main reason is the different ideas that surrounded the use and exploration of animals in laboratories is what is being brought into question.

The testing of animals in scientific and commercial research has been debated for many years. Some people view animals as companions or part of the family, but others think of them as a way to advance medicine by providing researchers with a means to develop better medical techniques, discovering vaccines, and helping to find a cure for a disease. Regardless of how a person may view animals, they are worthy of better protection by our government and us as a society. Although some animal testing has been successful, there are research alternatives that could eliminate the pain, suffering, and deaths that animals endure in scientific research. Therefore, animals should not be used in scientific research

Animals have successfully been used to understand biological processes, assess safety of different chemicals, develop vaccines and antibiotics, produce treatments for hepatitis C, rheumatoid arthritis, polio, diabetes and many more . However, it is impossible to know if the use of animals was required to acquire this research or if the amount of suffering and death could have been reduced or avoided in order to achieve the same results. It is well established that animals have been invaluable in the pursuit of biomedical research, and the benefits from using animals currently means that eliminating animal research is also immoral. This is because the benefits received from some research greatly outweigh the potential costs to the animals and it would be unjust not to perform such experiments. Consequently, animal research should not be fully banned due to the benefits it yields, but should be more heavily regulated to reduce the moral costs.

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

Animals make good research subjects for a variety of reasons. Animals are biologically similar to humans. They are susceptible to many of the same health problems, and they have short life cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life span or across or several generations. Animals are used in research to develop drugs and medical procedures to treat diseases. Scientists may discover such drugs and procedures using alternative research methods that do not involve animals. The safety within products is tested on animals before it is on

The debate and or argument had sort of stop in the 19th century in Great Britain, when the Cruelty to Animals Act was adopted in 1876. For both supporter and opponents of animal research this was a significant step forward. I like to believe this was only a small stepping stone for people around the world and more is to come. Well, in 1959, when William Russell, a zoologist and Rex Burch, a microbiologist published The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Their work had introduced the three R’s: replacement, reduction, and refinement. What this all means is first, replacement, which we find a replacement for animal testing with many other techniques, second, reduction, we reduce the number of the animal who are tested on, and third, refinement, we clarify animal tests to help reduce the suffering. These three concepts should become the foundation for scientist, to help develop scientific alternatives for animal testing.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires research facilities to have a certified veterinarian,”…who shall provide adequate veterinary care.” The AWA also requires animals used in research to be presented with appropriate housing, feeding, handling, sanitation, ventilation, and sheltering. The regulations are promptly guarded by The Institutional Care and Use Committee. The Institutional Care and Use Committee must ensure the appropriate handling and treatment of laboratory animals by reviewing and inspecting every research study. If a research study is viewed as potentially harmful to animals without reason then the Committee will close the study. The safety of test animals are protected and monitored by federal agencies. The notion of animals being brutally kept in hostile conditions can easily be swept away by the actions and protocols enacted by the U.S. government. These actions and protocols are meant to ensure the humane treatment of test animals.

Animal research is highly regulated to protect the animals. In addition to local and state laws and guidelines, animal research

The goal is to minimize and ultimately replacing animal experimentations with non-animal methods. After reading the two references that were utilized, the article written by Stephanie Liou, “Animal Research: The Ethics of Animal Experimentation,” is an unbiased unlike “Animal Experimentation” who seems to be a reformist after utilizing words such as “exaggerated” when describing arguments against experiments.

I am for the using of animals in research and testing due to the various benefits it offers. These experiments are necessary since some ailments can only be understood by studying a living animal as they entail intricate processes. The law necessitates that all drugs for human use must be tested on animals

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

Every research laboratory is required to have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, consisting of research experts, licensed vets and members of the public. This committee is in charge of reviewing and accepting the use of animals. They are also in charge of watching the care and use of those animals by studying the laboratories, keeping track of the programs and responding to any additional concerns.

Research on living animals has been practiced since at least 500 BC. Over 25 million animals are tested in labs every year. They are used for medical and scientific research. The animals used in research often undergo cruel experimentations and suffer through the pain. During medical testing, less than 2% of human illnesses are seen in animals, therefor medical testing on animals is cruel and pointless. Medical testing on animals should be illegal because products that pass animal tests end up harming or killing humans about 61% of the time.

Laws regulating animal use in medical research were introduced in England and in Germany in the 19th century, but not until the 1960’s were laws instituted in most countries, including the United States (Cartmill, 1993). Despite the outstanding number of animals killed each year, most countries have yet to better increase their insufficient policies protecting animals. “Most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available” (“Animal Experiments,” para. 11). The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966, which sought to protect animals from being wrongly used in medical research. However, the Animal Welfare Act provides only protection for a select group of species, excluding animals